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
12-03-2012, 09:41 PM
  #526
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is what I posted before, though overpass's advanced stats would show more or less the same thing:



That's from the middle of last season, so I'm sure the rankings would have changed a little.

The only possible way to put Housley over Lidstrom is to say that he had more offensive talent but didn't get to show it as often because he got less ice time due to terrible defense. I don't think I'd buy that, as I'm sure Housley (unlike Lidstrom) mostly got offensive zone draws when he was on the ice.
Fair enough, I'm not going to argue it too hard. I was never a fan of Housley's game to begin with.
However, while Housley's not clearly above Lidstrom offensively. I find it hard to say that Lidstrom is clearly above Housley either.
They're pretty close on purely offensive level.

I find it a hard pill to swallow on the Lidstrom peer to peer dominance thing. The only peers ahead of Housley offensively are also all ahead of Lidstrom offensively.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 09:42 PM
  #527
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
I didn't cherry pick 1993-94. I merely commented on it.

But while we're discussing Bourque's 1993-94, did you know Lidstrom outscored him at ES that year?
May wanna go back a few pages and look at all the responses that particular cherry pick got

And I'm pretty sure you're talking about Lidstrom's 99/00 season vs Bourque's 93/94 because in 93/94 Lidstrom scored 6 less ES points in 12 more games than Bourque that year.
BTW, it was also Bourque's 3rd lowest total of ES points in a season in 15 years to that point
It was also only one of three seasons in Lidstrom's entire career where he equaled or scored more ES points in a season than Bourque did in 93/94.

If we were to look up the definition of cherry picking right now, it would have a link to that post of yours


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-03-2012 at 10:15 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:10 PM
  #528
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
May wanna go back a few pages and look at all the responses that particular cherry pick got

And I'm pretty sure you're talking about Lidstrom's 99/00 season vs Bourque's 93/94 because in 93/94 Lidstrom scored 6 less ES points in 12 more games than Bourque that year.
BTW, it was also Bourque's 3rd lowest total of ES points in a season in 15 years to that point
It was also only one of two seasons in Lidstrom's entire career where he equaled or scored more ES points in a season than Bourque did in 93/94.
Bourque scored 34 ES points in 93-94. Lidstrom scored 36. Math FTW.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:14 PM
  #529
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Bourque scored 34 ES points in 93-94. Lidstrom scored 36. Math FTW.
In 12 more games.

Again!!!
Bourque only played 72 games and was on pace for 106 points and 40 ES points in 93/94

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:15 PM
  #530
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Fair enough, I'm not going to argue it too hard. I was never a fan of Housley's game to begin with.
However, while Housley's not clearly above Lidstrom offensively. I find it hard to say that Lidstrom is clearly above Housley either.
They're pretty close on purely offensive level.

I find it a hard pill to swallow on the Lidstrom peer to peer dominance thing. The only peers ahead of Housley offensively are also all ahead of Lidstrom offensively.
Now you're subjectively declaring that you "feel" Lidstrom is equal to Housley offensively.

You went from using statistics from different eras to show that Bourque was a better scorer, even though Lidstrom was the best from his era and his era captured all of the world's best players. You appear to have discarded, or at least set aside, that position in favor of "It just feels like Bourque was a lot better, mmkay?"

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:15 PM
  #531
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Bourque scored 34 ES points in 93-94. Lidstrom scored 36. Math FTW.
In TWELVE more games.

Interesting how you trot out PPG in any thread mentioning Yzerman but have conveniently forgotten it twice now in three posts about Lidstrom.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:16 PM
  #532
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
In 12 more games.

Again!!!
Bourque only played 72 games and was on pace for 106 points and 40 ES points in 93/94
Did Cam Neely score 50 in 50? Yes or No?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:18 PM
  #533
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
In TWELVE more games.

Interesting how you trot out PPG in any thread mentioning Yzerman but have conveniently forgotten it twice now in three posts about Lidstrom.
I said outscored. I didn't say out-PPGed.

And even so, a stay at home defenseman in his third season compared with an offense-first defenseman in his prime who plays significantly more minutes (and may have played more actual minutes despite games missed), and there's a projected 4-point difference at ES?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:19 PM
  #534
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,482
vCash: 500
This thread could be useful in a psychology class.

tarheelhockey is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:28 PM
  #535
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
I said outscored. I didn't say out-PPGed.

And even so, a stay at home defenseman in his third season compared with an offense-first defenseman in his prime who plays significantly more minutes (and may have played more actual minutes despite games missed), and there's a projected 4-point difference at ES?
Laughable.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:29 PM
  #536
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 974
vCash: 500
"stay at home" and "offense first"?

Did you even watch the two play?

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 10:32 PM
  #537
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Now you're subjectively declaring that you "feel" Lidstrom is equal to Housley offensively.
I changed my mind because Devil made a rational and coherent argument. You should give that a try some time

Quote:
You went from using statistics from different eras to show that Bourque was a better scorer, even though Lidstrom was the best from his era and his era captured all of the world's best players. You appear to have discarded, or at least set aside, that position in favor of "It just feels like Bourque was a lot better, mmkay?"
Actually, the early to mid 90's is quite easily the deepest and most tightly packed in talent the league has ever been.
All those Russian and Czech players suddenly coming over and there was only 22-26 teams.
(Gee, I wonder who was universally the best D-man during this talent packed time?)

And when exactly is Lidstrom's Era? Does it start the day Al MacInnis retired after '03 or when Leetch retires after '06?

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2012, 11:42 PM
  #538
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is what I posted before, though overpass's advanced stats would show more or less the same thing:



That's from the middle of last season, so I'm sure the rankings would have changed a little.

The only possible way to put Housley over Lidstrom is to say that he had more offensive talent but didn't get to show it as often because he got less ice time due to terrible defense. I don't think I'd buy that, as I'm sure Housley (unlike Lidstrom) mostly got offensive zone draws when he was on the ice.
Well, the European comment could be irrelevant, as Housley had to deal with all the American talent.

How about the quality of teammates? That Housley was very close to Lidstrom in overall scoring despite having the no-doubt worst talent surrounding him. If I recall, post 1968, Orr, Coffey, and Robinson are clearly ahead in the ESGF/Game (adjusted) category. Then, Lidstrom, Bourque, Housley, Park, Salming, Lapointe, Potvin, Leetch, and Stevens are all very close to each other. We tend to/should upgrade players like Bourque and Salming because they played with poor supporting casts, while we downgrade Lidstrom, Potvin, and Leetch because they were surrounded with fantastic talent.

On the PP, I recall that Macinnis is the best all time after Orr, followed by Leetch, Housley, and then everyone mashed together.

Now, of course, the above two stats are normalized for ice time....

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:09 AM
  #539
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Rather than just saying what we all remembered, here are the numbers overpass posted for defensemen we have been discussing.

Here are all the post-expansion defensemen to become eligible in the first 4 rounds of voting in the defensemen project

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen


Career Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1968 1979 596 49% 2.15 1.09 75 55 96% 1.52 63% 0.76
Larry Robinson 1973 1992 1384 43% 1.60 1.34 35 19 49% 1.14 45% 0.85
Denis Potvin 1974 1988 1060 43% 1.49 1.23 40 41 86% 1.18 53% 0.82
Ray Bourque 1980 2001 1612 42% 1.37 0.95 39 39 87% 1.11 58% 0.88
Chris Chelios 1984 2010 1651 39% 1.27 1.18 27 20 52% 1.02 57% 0.85
Vyacheslav Fetisov 1990 1998 546 33% 1.33 1.21 28 8 27% 1.03 27% 0.92
Nicklas Lidstrom 1992 2011 1494 40% 1.40 1.18 33 34 72% 1.25 52% 0.80

Prime Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1969 1975 514 50% 2.21 1.10 80 56 96% 1.59 67% 0.74
Denis Potvin 1976 1984 623 44% 1.65 1.41 44 47 95% 1.36 56% 0.74
Larry Robinson 1977 1986 731 48% 1.66 1.35 40 28 66% 1.20 58% 0.83
Ray Bourque 1982 1996 1081 43% 1.47 0.93 44 39 89% 1.09 58% 0.84
Chris Chelios 1988 1998 803 44% 1.33 1.21 30 30 79% 0.99 61% 0.86
Nicklas Lidstrom 1998 2008 801 42% 1.42 1.18 36 38 78% 1.27 61% 0.78

Stats Glossary
EV%: The percentage of the teamís even-strength goals the player was on the ice for, on a per-game basis.

R-ON: The teamís GF/GA ratio while the player is on the ice at even strength.

R-OFF: The teamís GF/GA ratio while the player is off the ice at even strength.

$ESP/S: Even strength points per season, adjusted to a 200 ESG per team-season scoring level.

$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted to a 70 PPG per team-season scoring level and a league-average number of power play opportunities.

PP%: The percentage of the teamís power play goals for which the player was on the ice.

TmPP+: The strength of the playerís team on the power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better.

SH%: The percentage of the teamís power play goals against for which the player was on the ice.

TmSH+: The strength of the playerís team on the penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better.


What does it all mean?

These defencemen are all among the best of all time, so there aren't a lot of critical comments to make. Orr, Potvin, Bourque, and Lidstrom are the four modern defencemen who I think were elite in all situations, so it's fitting that they are all up for the vote now. Chelios and Robinson were a step down as offensive players, with Robinson providing more offence at even strength.

A note on the team-based stats - the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL made it easier to put up high numbers in these stats.

Bobby Orr was the best at everything. Ever. His even-strength impact was unparalleled, as the only player with a GF/GA ratio over 2 for his career. On the power play, he scored tons of points on a dominant Bruins power play, and he played the most minutes on a great Bruins penalty kill also. Even if you take a little air out of the numbers to adjust for the lack of parity in the 1970s NHL, he's an easy pick for best defenceman ever, and a serious contender for best player ever. Note that his career numbers do not include his rookie year in 66-67.

Denis Potvin was a great defenceman in all aspects of the game, and the numbers bear that out. Compared to these other defencemen? Even-strength numbers are behind Orr, Bourque, Robinson, and maybe Lidstrom, but ahead of Chelios. On the power play, he may have been the 2nd best of this group at his best (Bourque and Lidstrom might dispute that.) His penalty killing numbers are also great, but I can't really separate this group of d-men on the PK by the numbers - they were all great.

Larry Robinson had outstanding even-strength numbers first and foremost. His career +720 is excellent no matter how much you adjust it for team strength, and his even strength scoring was comparable to Bourque and Potvin (if well behind Orr.) His career special teams numbers are a bit lower because he started off on a loaded Habs team and played until he was the oldest player in the league. Looking at just his prime numbers, his PK numbers are up there with the rest of the group, but he was a step down on the power play.

Ray Bourque was great in all situations for a very long time. It was hard to select a prime for him, because he was outstanding for so long. His career even-strength plus-minus numbers are second only to Orr's after adjusting for team strength. He's another contender for 2nd best PP D-man behind Orr -in addition to the point production, he was outstanding at holding the blueline and preventing SH goals.

Chris Chelios probably fits better with the next group of players, in my opinion, because his offensive game was the worst of any defenceman here. But he was an outstanding defensive defenceman for a very long time, who also brought some pretty good offence in his prime. May have had the most defensive role of anyone here in terms of tough matchups and faceoff locations, which would hurt his plus-minus. You could argue he's as good as anyone here on the penalty kill.

Vyacheslav Fetisov is included here for the sake of completeness, but it's clear he was past his prime in the NHL.

Nicklas Lidstrom was also outstanding in all situations. His even-strength numbers are a step down from Bourque's. (Some might argue that's because the style of play changed to make it more difficult for offensive defencemen to shine.) During his prime, Detroit had the best power play and penalty kill in the league by quite a bit, and he was a major part of both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen


Career Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Brad Park 1969 1985 1115 42% 1.40 1.20 36 32 80% 1.16 43% 0.84
Paul Coffey 1981 2001 1409 43% 1.23 1.21 46 35 78% 1.13 28% 0.82
Al MacInnis 1982 2004 1416 38% 1.41 1.12 32 42 86% 1.18 39% 0.93

Prime Stats
Player Start (Prime) End (Prime) GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Brad Park 1970 1978 613 47% 1.53 1.26 46 35 84% 1.23 49% 0.82
Paul Coffey 1982 1987 458 45% 1.47 1.39 60 38 83% 1.19 34% 0.69
Al MacInnis 1989 2003 1043 41% 1.42 1.11 34 42 88% 1.20 43% 0.92

What does it all mean?

Now that some of the great all-around defencemen are out of the way, some of the candidates start to show some weaknesses.

Brad Park was very good at everything. I think he was probably a notch below the best on the power play (Coffey, MacInnis, Potvin from this group), and probably a notch below the best penalty killers (Chelios, Robinson, Potvin from this group). And maybe Larry Robinson was better at even strength. Park was an all-rounder.

Paul Coffey was an offensive defenceman, in the positive and negative sense. His even strength point totals were through the roof. So were his even strength goals against totals. He was a great power play quarterback (although not a clear #2 overall, as he was for overall blueline scoring.) On the penalty kill, he was a contributor and a shorthanded threat, but not a defensive mainstay.

Al MacInnis was an incredible power play weapon first and foremost. Arguably top-5 ever among all players in that aspect of the game. He has some gaudy plus-minus numbers as well, but notice that those came in a smaller role (as measured by EV%) than the rest of the d-men here. MacInnis probably saw his plus-minus boosted by playing in fewer shutdown matchup situations and in more offensive zone situations, compared to most other d-men here. His penalty killing numbers show that his defensive play was fine but not a strength when compared to the other players listed here. MacInnis also had great longevity, with two of the best age 35+ seasons ever in 98-99 and 02-03.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen


Career Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-OFF R-ON $ESP PPP PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Scott Stevens 1983 2004 1635 42% 1.31 1.19 31 14 40% 0.94 56% 0.88
Brian Leetch 1988 2006 1205 45% 1.06 0.97 36 39 87% 1.12 50% 1.03
Chris Pronger 1994 2011 1154 39% 1.22 0.99 27 29 67% 1.12 54% 0.91

Prime Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-OFF R-ON $ESP PPP PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Brian Leetch 1989 1997 632 45% 1.20 1.06 40 41 91% 1.18 51% 0.95
Scott Stevens 1988 2003 1212 42% 1.34 1.20 31 14 38% 0.93 63% 0.89
Chris Pronger 1998 2007 587 42% 1.43 1.00 32 36 72% 1.20 61% 0.82

What does it all mean?

Scott Stevens developed into an outstanding defensive defenceman over his career. In the mid-90s, he moved into a defensive role, and New Jersey probably leveraged him in defensive situations more than any other defenceman ever. Hard matchups, hard minutes all the time. He still managed to post good plus-minus numbers relative to team. He also played a huge part in New Jersey's strong penalty kill. Stevens could still move the puck as a defensive defenceman, he just wasn't used on the power play or counted on for offence.

Brian Leetch was, like Coffey and MacInnis, an offensive defenceman. His plus-minus numbers are fairly poor compared to this level of defenceman. In his defence, he was probably asked to do more than he should have in New York, playing huge minutes in all situations without a lot of help on the back end. He's one of the group of players you could make a case for as the second best defenceman on the PP (behind Orr). Played big minutes on the penalty kill, with poor team results. Again, probably a case of being pushed into a bigger role than he was suited for, in my opinion.

Chris Pronger is my sleeper pick as a modern defenceman who was maybe better than you think. Very good on the power play. Excellent plus-minus numbers, while playing shutdown minutes in St Louis, Edmonton, and Philadelphia. (In Anaheim, Niedermayer and Beauchemin played the toughest minutes). His defensive partners at ES have been pretty ordinary over the years too, with the exception of the occasional shift with MacInnis or Niedermayer. Great penalty killer who was big, smart, mobile, and strong.

Pronger was at his best in the late 90s/early 00s, when he was the total package. Injuries in the early 00s slowed him down a bit, and he played a more conservative, defensive game at even strength in the past few years. He remains an excellent outlet passer and a strong power play presence. Pronger's biggest drawback? Injuries cost him a lot of regular season games in his prime.

I'll stop before this turns into an advocacy post for Pronger...or maybe it's too late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen


Career Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP PPP PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Serge Savard 1968 1983 1038 43% 1.44 1.52 25 9 24% 1.32 58% 0.82
Borje Salming 1974 1990 1148 43% 1.14 0.82 31 22 62% 0.98 55% 1.09

Prime Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP PPP PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Serge Savard 1970 1979 651 45% 1.72 1.67 28 13 34% 1.33 65% 0.76
Borje Salming 1976 1982 527 46% 1.26 0.83 41 32 81% 1.07 58% 1.04

What does it all mean?

Serge Savard is an interesting contrast with Borje Salming, in terms of team situation. Really, it's very difficult to compare them based on these numbers. Savard played on a dominant, all-time great team, and Salming played on probably the weakest teams of any candidate yet.

At even strength, Savard played big minutes and played the toughest defensive assignments. His team had outstanding results whether he was on or off the ice. He had a minor role on the power play, usually on the second unit (he was never on the ice for as many as half of his team's power play goals.) He was a great penalty killer, playing a major role on a great Montreal unit.

Borje Salming played on a weak team, but had excellent plus-minus numbers relative to his team. I wonder to what degree he and Ian Turnbull played the tough assignments, or if they were in more of an offensive role. Salming played a lot of minutes in all situations during his prime. His team results were below-average on both special teams, but it's hard to penalize him too much for that.

Savard and Salming's numbers both dropped off around 1980. This is more understandable for Savard, as he was 33 years old, had played a lot of playoff games, and had major knee injuries during his career. What about Salming? He was about 30 years old when his numbers (scoring and plus-minus) dropped off. Was it nagging injuries? Being forced to take on a more defensive role on a bad team? Tougher competition in the 1980s? Salming ended up playing until the age of 38, which was unusual at the time and is to his credit.

Note on Salming's prime years: I left out 1974 and 1975 because he played fewer minutes in those seasons (EV% of 39%, PP% of 46%, SH% of 57%.) But he was voted a second-team all-star in 1975, and was +38 in 1974, so you might choose to include those seasons in his prime.

Scott Stevens developed into an outstanding defensive defenceman over his career. In the mid-90s, he moved into a defensive role, and New Jersey probably leveraged him in defensive situations more than any other defenceman ever. Hard matchups, hard minutes all the time. He still managed to post good plus-minus numbers relative to team. He also played a huge part in New Jersey's strong penalty kill. Stevens could still move the puck as a defensive defenceman, he just wasn't used on the power play or counted on for offence.

Player Seasons GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S PP% TmPP+ $PPP/S SH% TmSH+
Scott Stevens 1985-94 756 45% 1.28 1.17 37 61% 0.94 24 49% 0.94
Scott Stevens 1995-03 686 40% 1.35 1.22 27 22% 0.94 6 71% 0.86

Stevens' power play role all but disappeared in the "defensive" part of his career. His penalty killing role went from "typical first-unit d-man" to "historically high". Even strength GF and GA dropped a bit, possibly because he was playing a more defensive style (ESP dropped). His overall plus-minus ratios rose along with his team.
Here are the numbers for Zubov and Housley:

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Regular season adjusted stats for post-1967 defencemen


Career Stats
Player Start year End year GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP $PPP PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Phil Housley 1983 2003 1495 38% 1.06 0.97 35 33 84% 1.01 11% 0.95
Sergei Zubov 1993 2009 1068 42% 1.25 1.13 33 34 82% 1.14 33% 0.86

Prime Stats
Player Start year End year GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP $PPP PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Phil Housley 1987 1996 686 42% 1.07 0.95 41 35 87% 1.03 16% 0.98
Sergei Zubov 1998 2007 705 41% 1.25 1.16 29 35 84% 1.14 41% 0.85

What does it all mean?

Phil Housley was an extreme offensive defenceman. Great offensively, not-so-great defensively.

He played some centre in his first two years in Buffalo, and in the following two years was a bit of a power-play specialist, playing bottom-pairing minutes at even strength. He had a solid 10-year prime as one of the top scoring defencemen in the league before his scoring numbers dropped off to the 40-50 point level.

Very few defencemen played more than Housley on the power play. Here are the leading defencemen in career PP%, minimum 1000 GP post-expansion.

Player GP PP%
Ray Bourque 1612 87%
Brian Leetch 1205 87%
Denis Potvin 1060 86%
Al MacInnis 1416 86%
Phil Housley 1495 84%

And very few established NHL defencemen played less time on the penalty kill. Here are the 1000 GP post-expansion defencemen with the lowest SH%.

Player GP SH%
Phil Housley 1495 11%
Sergei Gonchar 1058 21%
Fredrik Olausson 1022 22%
Petr Svoboda 1047 25%
Ed Jovanovski 1019 25%

His special teams numbers are interesting not only in and of themselves, but also because they give an idea of what type of player he was.

But I have to give him credit - among post-1980 defencemen, only Coffey, Bourque, and Leetch had better adjusted even-strength points in their prime. On the power play, Housley's numbers were behind Coffey, Bourque, Leetch, Lidstrom, and Gonchar, and similar to Reinhart, Suter, Pronger, Zubov, Markov, and Boyle. Was Housley (relatively) better at even-strength scoring because he traded defence for offence more than others? Or because his power play teammates weren't as good?

Sergei Zubov was a very good offensive defenceman for a long time. He went from being poor defensively to being a useful defender later in his career, and was a plus defender under post-lockout rules when skating ability became more important than size and strength.

But he never really had a big season where he was a legitimate Norris contender.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 01:20 AM
  #540
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Of the defensemen talked about, these are their prime numbers in order

At even strength

Orr 80
Coffey 60
Park 46
Bourque 44
Potvin 44
Salming 41
Housley 41
Robinson 40
Leetch 40
Lidstrom 36
MacInnis 34
Pronger 32
Stevens 31
Chelios 30
Zubov 29
Savard 28

On the powerplay

Orr 56
Potvin 47
MacInnis 42
Leetch 41
Bourque 39
Coffey 38
Lidstrom 38
Pronger 36
Park 35
Housley 35
Zubov 35
Salming 32
Chelios 30
Robinson 28
Stevens 14
Savard 13

Numbers are adjusted even strength and powerplay points per 82 games

Keep in mind that players with longer primes (like Lidstrom and Bourque) will be probably be underrated by a "per game" metric like this


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-04-2012 at 12:34 PM. Reason: fixed Salming's ES number
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:04 AM
  #541
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Rather than just saying what we all remembered, here are the numbers overpass posted for defensemen we have been discussing.

Here are all the post-expansion defensemen to become eligible in the first 4 rounds of voting in the defensemen project









Here are the numbers for Zubov and Housley:
Hmm. I remember a different study by Overpass. It had Bourque at 1.17 per game and Lidstrom at 1.19. Salming at 1.17, Macinnis at 1.1, Chelios at 1.0. Orr at 1.81. Just some of the numbers. That is the one I was quoting. Or maybe I am mixing some up.

In any case, my memory seems to be decently accurate. Thanks for finding it.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:06 AM
  #542
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Of the defensemen talked about, these are their prime numbers in order

At even strength

Orr 80
Coffey 60
Park 46
Bourque 44
Potvin 44
Housley 41
Robinson 40
Leetch 40
Lidstrom 36
MacInnis 34
Pronger 32
Salming 32
Stevens 31
Chelios 30
Zubov 29
Savard 28

On the powerplay

Orr 56
Potvin 47
MacInnis 42
Leetch 41
Bourque 39
Coffey 38
Lidstrom 38
Pronger 36
Park 35
Housley 35
Zubov 35
Salming 32
Chelios 30
Robinson 28
Stevens 14
Savard 13

Numbers are adjusted even strength and powerplay points per 82 games

Keep in mind that players with longer primes (like Lidstrom and Bourque) will be probably be underrated by a "per game" metric like this
Salming was at 41 for his peak. Which adds some validity to the arguement that Salming was superior to Lidstrom offensively when both were at their best. Surely one can imagine someone who only saw Salming during his prime making this claim...

Looks like a lot of your numbers were off....


Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 02:20 AM.
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:20 AM
  #543
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Of the defensemen talked about, these are their prime numbers in order

At even strength

Orr 80
Coffey 60
Park 46
Bourque 44
Potvin 44
Housley 41
Robinson 40
Leetch 40
Lidstrom 36
MacInnis 34
Pronger 32
Salming 32
Stevens 31
Chelios 30
Zubov 29
Savard 28

On the powerplay

Orr 56
Potvin 47
MacInnis 42
Leetch 41
Bourque 39
Coffey 38
Lidstrom 38
Pronger 36
Park 35
Housley 35
Zubov 35
Salming 32
Chelios 30
Robinson 28
Stevens 14
Savard 13

Numbers are adjusted even strength and powerplay points per 82 games

Keep in mind that players with longer primes (like Lidstrom and Bourque) will be probably be underrated by a "per game" metric like this
What is particularly interesting about this list is how players like Pronger and Salming fare despite not having played on the best teams vs. players like Lidstrom and Robinson, who almost always were on incredibly dominant teams.

Here are the numbers side by side (prime). You had a bunch of the numbers wrong. I plugged in the rights ones, I think! I added twp columns. One with the numbers added together, and one with ES + .5PP points, just since that seems to make sense.

ES PP + pp/2
Orr 80 56 136 108
Coffey 60 38 98 79
Potvin 44 47 91 67.5
Park 46 35 81 63.5
Bourque 44 39 83 63.5
Leetch 40 41 81 60.5
Housley 41 38 79 60
Salming 41 32 73 57
Lidstrom 36 38 74 55
MacInnis 34 42 76 55
Robinson 40 28 68 54
Pronger 32 36 68 50
Zubov 29 35 64 46.5
Chelios 30 30 60 45
Stevens 31 14 45 38
Savard 28 13 41 34.5

Interesting. Lidstrom looks good, but not great. Considering that he's definitely had better talent surrounding him than Pronger, the results don't support his inclusion in the top 10 offensive d-men of all time. I suspect that if we could normalize for environment, Potvin would look closer to 60, Bourque closer to 70, Lidstrom closer to 50, etc.


Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 03:03 AM.
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 02:26 AM
  #544
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Career Stats

Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP/S $PPP/S Total PP/2 PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Bobby Orr 1968 1979 596 49% 2.15 1.09 75 55 130 102.5 96% 1.52 63% 0.76
Paul Coffey 1981 2001 1409 43% 1.23 1.21 46 35 81 63.5 78% 1.13 28% 0.82
Denis Potvin 1974 1988 1060 43% 1.49 1.23 40 41 81 60.5 86% 1.18 53% 0.82
Ray Bourque 1980 2001 1612 42% 1.37 0.95 39 39 78 58.5 87% 1.11 58% 0.88
Brian Leetch 1988 2006 1205 45% 1.06 0.97 36 39 75 55.5 87% 1.12 50% 1.03
Al MacInnis 1982 2004 1416 38% 1.41 1.12 32 42 74 53 86% 1.18 39% 0.93
Brad Park 1969 1985 1115 42% 1.4 1.2 36 32 68 52 80% 1.16 43% 0.84
Phil Housley 1983 2003 1495 38% 1.06 0.97 35 33 68 51.5 84% 1.01 11% 0.95
Nicklas Lidstrom 1992 2011 1494 40% 1.4 1.18 33 34 67 50 72% 1.25 52% 0.8
Sergei Zubov 1993 2009 1068 42% 1.25 1.13 33 34 67 50 82% 1.14 33% 0.86
Larry Robinson 1973 1992 1384 43% 1.6 1.34 35 19 54 44.5 49% 1.14 45% 0.85
Borje Salming 1974 1990 1148 43% 1.14 0.82 31 22 53 42 62% 0.98 55% 1.09
Chris Pronger 1994 2011 1154 39% 1.22 0.99 27 29 56 41.5 67% 1.12 54% 0.91
Scott Stevens 1983 2004 1635 42% 1.31 1.19 31 14 45 38 40% 0.94 56% 0.88
Chris Chelios 1984 2010 1651 39% 1.27 1.18 27 20 47 37 52% 1.02 57% 0.85
Vyacheslav Fetisov 1990 1998 546 33% 1.33 1.21 28 8 36 32 27% 1.03 27% 0.92
Serge Savard 1968 1983 1038 43% 1.44 1.52 25 9 34 29.5 24% 1.32 58% 0.82

Making the assumption that Fetisov was the superior offensive talent, that puts Lidstrom solidly in 9th place, not even counting players like Shore, Clancy, Harvey, Kelly, etc.


Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 03:05 AM.
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 03:06 AM
  #545
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Some more Dmen:

Career Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP $PPP Total PP/2 PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Larry Murphy 1981 2001 1615 39% 1.2 1.02 34 25 59 46.5 65% 1.05 32% 0.92
Guy Lapointe 1969 1984 884 42% 1.41 1.66 31 28 59 45 64% 1.29 52% 0.76
Scott Niedermayer 1992 2010 1263 39% 1.25 1.22 31 26 57 44 64% 1.04 40% 0.94
J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 54 43 69% 1.31 64% 0.85
Rob Blake 1990 2010 1270 37% 1.03 1.03 30 26 56 43 66% 1.04 50% 1
Zdeno Chara 1998 2011 928 40% 1.16 1.04 24 17 41 32.5 42% 1.05 52% 0.95
Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 435 47% 1.53 1.31 26 9 35 30.5 35% 1.22 73% 0.84
Rod Langway 1979 1993 994 35% 1.29 1.2 20 3 23 21.5 10% 1.02 53% 0.83
Prime Stats
Player Start End GP EV% R-ON R-OFF $ESP $PPP Total PP/2 PP% TmPP+ SH% TmSH+
Larry Murphy 1992 1995 292 45% 1.38 1.05 45 28 73 59 80% 1.11 45% 0.94
Guy Lapointe 1973 1979 499 46% 1.67 1.88 40 34 74 57 75% 1.32 68% 0.74
Rob Blake 1998 2002 362 43% 1.11 1.08 40 32 72 56 79% 0.99 54% 0.99
Scott Niedermayer 2004 2007 242 39% 1.27 1.22 37 33 70 53.5 79% 1.13 47% 0.9
J.C. Tremblay 1968 1972 358 45% 1.37 1.33 32 22 54 43 69% 1.31 64% 0.85
Zdeno Chara 2003 2011 622 41% 1.38 1.13 30 25 55 42.5 60% 1.05 53% 0.89
Jacques Laperriere 1968 1973 393 47% 1.56 1.31 26 9 35 30.5 36% 1.23 75% 0.83
Rod Langway 1981 1989 673 38% 1.35 1.21 22 4 26 24 14% 0.99 57% 0.85

Not very meaningful since primes are so short for these players. Interesting to see how Murphy does in that short span....


Last edited by OrrNumber4: 12-04-2012 at 03:20 AM.
OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 03:55 AM
  #546
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
You had a bunch of the numbers wrong. I plugged in the rights ones, I think!
Er.... unless I'm missing something, your numbers are only different from the ones I posted for Phil Housley. And my numbers are the same as what I copied and pasted from overpass.

I was wrong earlier in the thread when I said overpass's numbers would show Lidstrom with an advantage over Housley offensively - they are effectively tied. Though I'm of the opinion that the adjusted numbers inflate the totals of defensemen in the 80s and 90s a little bit because of the changing role of the position.

Quote:
I added twp columns. One with the numbers added together, and one with ES + .5PP points, just since that seems to make sense.
I strongly disagree that powerplay points are only worth half of even strength points. A goal is a goal.

Quote:
Interesting. Lidstrom looks good, but not great. Considering that he's definitely had better talent surrounding him than Pronger, the results don't support his inclusion in the top 10 offensive d-men of all time.
Pronger spent the majority of his prime playing next to Al MacInnis on the powerplay. He later spent some time next to Scott Niedermayer. Lidstrom never had PP partners that good. For some of the time Pronger had MacInnis, he also had Tkachuk, one of the best regular season PP goal scorers of all-time. I don't think it's at all clear that Lidstrom had more offensive talent surrounding him. Wings were deeper, but I'd take the help Pronger had on the PP in both St. Louis and Anaheim over what Lidstrom had in Detroit.

Quote:
I suspect that if we could normalize for environment, Potvin would look closer to 60, Bourque closer to 70, Lidstrom closer to 50, etc.
God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.

I think Bourque was definitely a better even strength producer than Lidstrom (he also took more chances). But I don't think it's clear at all that he was better on the powerplay.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-04-2012 at 04:04 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 04:00 AM
  #547
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post

Making the assumption that Fetisov was the superior offensive talent, that puts Lidstrom solidly in 9th place, not even counting players like Shore, Clancy, Harvey, Kelly, etc.
Assuming you want to rank guys on career per-game averages (which I think is problematic), there is nothing "solid" about the 1 point per 82 game difference that separates all of Nicklas Lidstrom, Phil Housley, Brad Park, and Sergie Zubov. By this metric you'd have to call those 4 basically equal offensively - though notice that Lidstrom saw quite a bit less PP time than the other 3, especially Housley and Zubov.

Quote:
Not very meaningful since primes are so short for these players. Interesting to see how Murphy does in that short span....
Yeah, lots of offensive opportunities with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr will do that to a guy.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 04:09 AM
  #548
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
I see 6 post-expansion defensemen a clear step up from Lidstrom offensively: Orr, Coffey, Bourque, Potvin, MacInnis, and Leetch. That's it.

Among pre-expansion defensemen, Kelly was definitely better offensively. Pilote probably was. You can make a case for Shore and Gadsby.

I don't think it's out of the bounds of reason to have Lidstrom on the fringe of the top 10 offensive defensemen of all time, though he probably wouldn't make my cut.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 09:49 AM
  #549
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Er.... unless I'm missing something, your numbers are only different from the ones I posted for Phil Housley. And my numbers are the same as what I copied and pasted from overpass.

I was wrong earlier in the thread when I said overpass's numbers would show Lidstrom with an advantage over Housley offensively - they are effectively tied. Though I'm of the opinion that the adjusted numbers inflate the totals of defensemen in the 80s and 90s a little bit because of the changing role of the position.
Check again. Your salming numbers were off...

Quote:
I strongly disagree that powerplay points are only worth half of even strength points. A goal is a goal.
Doesn't really change the order of the numbers.



Quote:
Pronger spent the majority of his prime playing next to Al MacInnis on the powerplay. He later spent some time next to Scott Niedermayer. Lidstrom never had PP partners that good. For some of the time Pronger had MacInnis, he also had Tkachuk, one of the best regular season PP goal scorers of all-time. I don't think it's at all clear that Lidstrom had more offensive talent surrounding him. Wings were deeper, but I'd take the help Pronger had on the PP in both St. Louis and Anaheim over what Lidstrom had in Detroit.
Would be interesting to compare pp goals scored on vs off.



Quote:
God, some posters here just can't help but give Bourque as much extra credit as they can throw at him, while simultaneously taking away from Lidstrom. Bourque's teams were weaker than Lidstrom or Potvin's. Bourque also played 89% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 87% over his career. Lidstrom played 78% of his team's PPs in his prime, and 72% over his career. That is not a small difference.
I think that that gap is mitigated by the quality of the teams pp...at least partially.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2012, 09:53 AM
  #550
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Assuming you want to rank guys on career per-game averages (which I think is problematic), there is nothing "solid" about the 1 point per 82 game difference that separates all of Nicklas Lidstrom, Phil Housley, Brad Park, and Sergie Zubov. By this metric you'd have to call those 4 basically equal offensively - though notice that Lidstrom saw quite a bit less PP time than the other 3, especially Housley and Zubov.
How about the quality of teams? I was also looking at primes, which gives Housley and Park a boost.



Quote:
Yeah, lots of offensive opportunities with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr will do that to a guy.
Right.

OrrNumber4 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 01:28 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.