HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-25-2012, 07:10 PM
  #51
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
I saw both play from beginning to end. In fact, NY Cablevision had WSBK Channel 38 added to it for some reason around 1988, then the additional games on SCA and the games against the New York teams. In 1991 I moved to Boston and saw his entire career as a Bruin from that point until the day he was traded.

Longevity/Durability -- Lidstrom played in 1564 regular season games to Bourque's 1612. Both missed time to the 1995 lockout, but Lidstrom missed a full 82 from 2005. Lidstrom averaged 80 games a season in 19 of his 20 seasons. In the 1995 season he played in 43 of 48. Bourque averaged 74.5 over his 21 full seasons. He played in 46 of 48 in 1995. The tipping point however is the postseason. Lidstrom played in 263 playoff games to Bourque's 214.

Lidstrom missed a total of 44 games to injury in 20 seasons, with 12 coming last season. That means between 1992 and 2011 he missed only 32 games to injury.

Bourque missed 43 games to injury in his first four years in the league. In fact, Bourque won the Norris in 1994 despite missing 12 games. Outside of Bobby Orr, it was the only time in NHL history a player won the Norris with double-digits games lost to injury.

Bourque basically played one more season than Lidstrom but averaged less games per season.

Edge -- Lidstrom

Offensively -- Bourque IIRC lead all defense in single season scoring only twice in 22 years. Lidstrom lead all defensemen in scoring five times.

Something that also gets overlooked with Bourque are lackluster statistical postseasons with Boston from around 1992 to 1998. From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3. In later years, in 45 playoff games between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a -28 in 45 games

Additionally, Bourque's PPG average from the regular season more times than not did not equal what he did in that specific postseason. For example, 14 times, Bourque averaged 1.00 PPG or higher in the regular season. Yet in the playoffs, Bourque only hit 1.00 or above 5 times. Granted, defenses tighten in the playoffs as do the competition, but the drop off with Bourque was significant in that period.

Bourque's 5 "best" playoff seasons by point production below the age of 30 were: 1980, 1982, 1983, 1988, 1990 -- 76 games played -- 19 goals -- 59a -- 78 points. But take the rest and the numbers (mentioned above) are beyond paltry within the context of a Bourque-Lidstrom debate.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 07:15 PM
  #52
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Peak.

A wide variety of sources say that Harvey controlled the pace of the game in a manner comparable to Bobby Orr.

Pretty much every opinion that I've seen of people old enough to watch Harvey play (from posters on this website to guys like Scottie Bowman) consider Harvey to have been better at his best than Bourque.

This is supported by the Norris and All-Star voting where, once Harvey hit his stride, he blew away the competition, including a peak Red Kelly. Compare to Ray Bourque who lost Norrises to Chris Chelios and Brian Leetch while in his prime and won a Norris over Scott Stevens by 1 point.
Harvey getting consideration as possibly the best player on the best team of all time, even ahead of Jean Beliveau at his peak, is highly impressive too. If I recall correctly his Hart record is much better than Lidstrom, even though he played on a team more loaded than Lidstrom's. Talent pool has to be considered somewhat but you're right, there does seem to be a solid peak argument for Harvey.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 07:29 PM
  #53
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's exactly what I wanted clarified before I jumped down your throat heh.
Although, I don't find Savard and Lapointe coming in around the 30 each mark as overrated. Especially Savard, if not for breaking his leg really badly, he would have ended up much higher in the rankings IMO.
Savard did break his leg and his Norris voting record quite simply would have left him off the top 60 list all together if he was playing with the Vancouver Canucks for instance.



Quote:
And you know, that's all well and good when talking about him vs other D-men in the league at that time. However, as Phil said earlier, as soon as the context is Bourque, those years stand out like a sore thumb.
Lidstrom was above average to good those years, nothing more, nothing less.
Anything more is pure and simple revisionism.
Top 20 over a 3 year period of time between 92-95 is pretty decent in my mind but then again he wasn't losing Norris trophies to Carlyle.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 07:58 PM
  #54
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Coffey gets banged around a lot on these boards (something I don't agree with) but I don't think even his sharpest critics think he deserved anything but the Norris in 1995. He was getting Hart votes then too. In 1996 he finished 5th in Norris voting and that's where it ends. I think if you look at Coffey's career you can basically say that his last hurrah was the 1996 World Cup where he played well. Then Detroit trades him to a poor team (Hartford) and it almost seemed as if that took the wind out of his sails. I guess he had nothing left in the tank. But either way in the mid 1990s he was Detroit's best defenseman no doubt
My guess is that in terms of overall play and value to their teams both Vlad and Nick were deemed more valuable to the Wings in Coffey's time there.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 08:11 PM
  #55
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
My guess is that in terms of overall play and value to their teams both Vlad and Nick were deemed more valuable to the Wings in Coffey's time there.
Oh, absolutely not, and I look forward to day when someone actually looks into Coffey's influence on Sergei Fedorov's offensive numbers.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 08:33 PM
  #56
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Peak.

A wide variety of sources say that Harvey controlled the pace of the game in a manner comparable to Bobby Orr.

Pretty much every opinion that I've seen of people old enough to watch Harvey play (from posters on this website to guys like Scottie Bowman) consider Harvey to have been better at his best than Bourque.

This is supported by the Norris and All-Star voting where, once Harvey hit his stride, he blew away the competition, including a peak Red Kelly. Compare to Ray Bourque who lost Norrises to Chris Chelios and Brian Leetch while in his prime and won a Norris over Scott Stevens by 1 point.



Such an argument would put an emphasis on playoff performance.
There is some evidence to suggest that by the time Harvey was getting all star recognition that Kelly was only considered a Dman , in the minds of voters at least for 4 or maybe 5 years.

Kelly clearly has the more impressive results in actual h2h voting as Dmen IMO.

Here is how they show up in voting,

50 All-star

Gus Morton, Tort 21 (3-2-0)
Ken Reardon, Mtl 20 (4-0-0)
Leo Reise, Det 17 (2-2-1)
Red Kelly, Det 17 (2-2-1) age 22
Jack Stewart, Det 8
Jimmy Thomson, Tor 6
Bill Quackenbush, Bos
Fern Flaman, Bos

Harvey age 25 not listed

51 all-star

Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0)
Bill Quackenbush, Bos 68 (9-7-2)
Jim Thomson, Tor 62 (8-6-4)
Leo Reise, Det 50 (0-16-2)

52 All-star voting

Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0)
Doug Harvey, Mtl 71 (12-3-1)

Hy Buller, NYR 47 (1-13-3)
Jim Thomson, Tor 38 (2-6-10)

53 All-star voting

Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0)
Doug Harvey, Mtl 56 (8-5-1)

Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3)
Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9)

54 Norris

1. Red Kelly, Det 162 (76-86)
2. Doug Harvey, Mtl 57 (22-35)

3. Bill Gadsby, Chi 38 (28-10)
4. Tim Horton, Tor 26
5. Bob Goldham, Det 18
T6. Butch Bouchard, Mtl 6
T6. Jim Thomson, Tor 6


55 Norris

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 147 (72-75)
2. Red Kelly, Det 95 (40-55)

3. Fern Flaman, Bos 32 (17-15)
4. Bob Goldham, Det 16 (7-9)
5. Hugh Bolton, Tor 9 (8-1)
6. Tim Horton, Tor

Here is the 55 Hart voting

1. Ted Kennedy, Tor C 86 (40-46)
2. Harry Lumley, Tor G 61 (23-38)
3. Maurice Richard, Mtl LW 36 (19-17)
4. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 21 (14-7)
T5. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 18 (7-11)
T5. Gordie How, Det RW 18
7. Bernie Geoffrion, Mtl RW 16
8. Red Kelly, Det D 15

56 Norris

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 156 (78-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 59 (16-43)
3. Red Kelly, Det 44 (17-27)
4. Tom Johnson, Mtl 21 (14-7)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 11 (5-6)
6. Harry Howell, NYR 8


Kelly gets an allstar vote at LW this year and actually is 4th in Hart voting ahead of Harvey who is 5th.

It really begs the question if all voters really saw Kelly as a Dman during 56 and afterwards.

56 Hart Trophy

1. Jean Beliveau, Mtl C 94 (53-41)
2. Tod Sloan, Tor C 86 (14-72)
3. Lorne Worsley, NYR G 72 (55-17)
4. Red Kelly, Det D 25 (14-11)
5. Doug Harvey, Mtl D 11 (6-5)
6. Johnny Wilson, Chi LW 10
7. Gordie Howe, Det RW 8
T8. Andy Bathgate, NYR RW 6
T8. Maurice Richard, Mtl RW 6
10. Ted Lindsay, Det LW 5

57 Norris Trophy

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 159 (83-76)
2. Red Kelly, Det 42 (20-22) This is the year he dips 50-35 points

3. Fern Flaman, Bos 35 (16-19)
4. Bill Gadsby, NYR 32 (14-18)
5. Doug Mohns, Bos 23 (17-6)
6. Marcel Pronovost, Det 15

58 Norris Voting

1. Doug Harvey, Mtl 153 (75-78)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 119 (55-64)
3. Fern Flaman, Bos 17 (13-4)
4. Ron Stewart, Tor 13 (10-3)
5. Marcel Pronovost, Det 7 (3-4)
T6. Red Kelly, Det 3 31 points in 61 games

58 is the last time Kelly shows up in Norris voting, in 59 Harvey does quite poorly and I'm not sure why.

59 Norris Voting

1. Tom Johnson, Mtl 92 (38-54)
2. Bill Gadsby, NYR 67 (31-36)
3. Marcel Pronovost, Det 58 (34-24)
4. Doug Harvey, Mtl 48 (30-18)
5. Fern Flaman, Bos 34 (21-13)
6. Pierre Pilote, Chi 19
7. Lou Fontinato, NYR 5


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 11-25-2012 at 08:46 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 08:44 PM
  #57
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
My guess is that in terms of overall play and value to their teams both Vlad and Nick were deemed more valuable to the Wings in Coffey's time there.
No, I don't agree. Coffey is similar to Phil Esposito. In the other thread we are talking about why Esposito dropped rather quickly after his trade to NYR (for his standards). The same applies to Coffey and I personally believe that with both players and all they had been through playing a ton of hockey and winning lots of championships and awards that a trade sort of deflated them for good. It almost seemed like Coffey just had little else to give after Detroit traded him, maybe it took the wind out of his sails. But personally I think while he was a Red Wing up until 1996 he was the man on that back end.

And I never thought of what someone else mentioned about Coffey's effect on Fedorov's numbers. The two best years Fedorov had (even 1995 was good) were when Coffey was there and both played a game that I thought complimented each other well.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 08:47 PM
  #58
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Oh, absolutely not, and I look forward to day when someone actually looks into Coffey's influence on Sergei Fedorov's offensive numbers.
I meant in real actual hockey terms, of course Coffey wins in fantasy terms.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 08:59 PM
  #59
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,703
vCash: 500
1955-56 was the only season in Detroit during which Kelly played a significant amount of forward.

Harvey "did poorly" in 1958-59 because he was injured and Tom Johnson had to take over the role of #1 defenseman on Montreal for the season. It was the only season between 1954-55 and 1961-62 where Harvey didn't win the Norris.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:20 PM
  #60
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Do you have the conference voting for the Norris from 1994-95 showing that he wasn't considered top-ten? Lidstrom was top-20 in defense scoring and served as a defensive lock for Coffey, who scored an insane 58 points in 45 games to win the Norris. Most of the guy ahead of Lidstrom were defensively average or liabilities; guys like Galley, Housley, Brown, Norton, Schneider, and Zalapski. But Coffey's scoring? That doesn't happen without Lidstrom as his partner. It was even debated by fans as to whether Coffey was even the best defenseman on the team. Lidstrom with a more defensively capable player would have scored another ~10 points, and likely been right in the thick of Norris voting.
I don't have the results from first round of voting. But we can infer the summary results of the first round of Western Conference all-star voting from the list of players who were available from the second round of voting.

Paul Coffey, Chris Chelios, Phil Housley, Steve Duchesne, Al MacInnis, and Gary Suter were all Western conference nominees and finished ahead of Lidstrom in the first round of voting. Add Bourque, Murphy, Desjardins, and Leetch from the East, all of whom were named on at least 6/15 ballots in the second round, and it seems very unlikely that the writers saw Lidstrom as a top-10 defenceman that year.

You may think he was top-10, but that's according to eva unit zero and is not supported by the PHWA.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:31 PM
  #61
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
I saw both play from beginning to end. In fact, NY Cablevision had WSBK Channel 38 added to it for some reason around 1988, then the additional games on SCA and the games against the New York teams. In 1991 I moved to Boston and saw his entire career as a Bruin from that point until the day he was traded.

Longevity/Durability -- Lidstrom played in 1564 regular season games to Bourque's 1612. Both missed time to the 1995 lockout, but Lidstrom missed a full 82 from 2005. Lidstrom averaged 80 games a season in 19 of his 20 seasons. In the 1995 season he played in 43 of 48. Bourque averaged 74.5 over his 21 full seasons. He played in 46 of 48 in 1995. The tipping point however is the postseason. Lidstrom played in 263 playoff games to Bourque's 214.

Lidstrom missed a total of 44 games to injury in 20 seasons, with 12 coming last season. That means between 1992 and 2011 he missed only 32 games to injury.

Bourque missed 43 games to injury in his first four years in the league. In fact, Bourque won the Norris in 1994 despite missing 12 games. Outside of Bobby Orr, it was the only time in NHL history a player won the Norris with double-digits games lost to injury.

Bourque basically played one more season than Lidstrom but averaged less games per season.

Edge -- Lidstrom

Offensively -- Bourque IIRC lead all defense in single season scoring only twice in 22 years. Lidstrom lead all defensemen in scoring five times.

Something that also gets overlooked with Bourque are lackluster statistical postseasons with Boston from around 1992 to 1998. From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3. In later years, in 45 playoff games between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a -28 in 45 games

Additionally, Bourque's PPG average from the regular season more times than not did not equal what he did in that specific postseason. For example, 14 times, Bourque averaged 1.00 PPG or higher in the regular season. Yet in the playoffs, Bourque only hit 1.00 or above 5 times. Granted, defenses tighten in the playoffs as do the competition, but the drop off with Bourque was significant in that period.

Bourque's 5 "best" playoff seasons by point production below the age of 30 were: 1980, 1982, 1983, 1988, 1990 -- 76 games played -- 19 goals -- 59a -- 78 points. But take the rest and the numbers (mentioned above) are beyond paltry within the context of a Bourque-Lidstrom debate.
Offensively. Bourque is the only defenseman in NHL history to lead his team in scoring 5 times and was the guy counted on to create offense for that entire team. Shutdown players zoned in on him instead of forwards most times and coaches built strategies specifically designed to keep Bourque out of the play in the playoffs because he was Boston's system. Whereas Lidstrom played a "supporting offense" role and was never the guy keyed in on by the best shutdown players while guys like Steve Y and Fedorov/Shanahan were on the ice and played on what was usually one of the highest scoring teams in the league(And a superstar filled team which even when Lidstrom was not on the ice, was a superstar team).

Tremendous advantage Bourque

Love the cherry picked statistics harping on Bourque's post seasons. All of which have been debunked in previous threads

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:32 PM
  #62
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I think you misunderstand All-Star voting for defensemen. There is no differentiation between the #1 or the #2 defenseman when voting for an All-Star selection. So even if someone believes Rob Blake to be better than Nicklas Lidstrom, by selecting both Blake and Lidstrom to the All-Star team, they both get a 1st Place vote (leaving, for example, Pronger and Niedermayer both with 2nd Place votes, and Stevens and Bourque both with 3rd Place votes). They're not voting 1-2-3; they're voting 1-1-2-2-3-3.

It is for this same reason that Mike Green led in All-Star votes in 2009 over Chara despite having fewer Norris votes - people were more likely to believe Green to be one of the two best defensemen in the league than they were with Chara, but they were more likely to believe that Chara was the absolute best than they were with Green.

Pretending that Lidstrom was voted the best defenseman by the All-Star vote in 1998 is a complete misuse of the vote itself. Was he voted the most likely defenseman to be either the #1 or the #2 best defenseman in the league? Yes. But he was not voted the #1.
Sergei Fedorov received the most first place votes for the Selke in 1992, and Guy Carbonneau received the most second place votes. Based on the logic you use here, Fedorov should have received the Selke as more voters considered him the best defensive forward than anyone else. And if it were a "pick one" situation, he would have.

But that's not how it works. Most notably about the 1998 ballot in particular? There were 53 ballots cast. Lidstrom was named on 53 ballots, 40-12-1. Blake was only named on 49, 39-8-2. Meaning that although he won the Norris, there were four writers that felt he wasn't even one of the six best defensemen in the league. There were 54 ballots cast for the Norris. Blake was on 50, Lidstrom on 52.

The fact is, though, that the PHWA votes on the best C, LW, RW, D, and G, and publishes the results as the postseason All-Star teams. Lidstrom had the most points from AS voting. If you can consider the first-team center to be voted the "best center" then you have to acknowledge the leading defenseman as voted "best defenseman" by the same method.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:35 PM
  #63
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I don't have the results from first round of voting. But we can infer the summary results of the first round of Western Conference all-star voting from the list of players who were available from the second round of voting.

Paul Coffey, Chris Chelios, Phil Housley, Steve Duchesne, Al MacInnis, and Gary Suter were all Western conference nominees and finished ahead of Lidstrom in the first round of voting. Add Bourque, Murphy, Desjardins, and Leetch from the East, all of whom were named on at least 6/15 ballots in the second round, and it seems very unlikely that the writers saw Lidstrom as a top-10 defenceman that year.

You may think he was top-10, but that's according to eva unit zero and is not supported by the PHWA.
Where did you get the more detailed voting results? I didn't see them in the awards thread.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 09:46 PM
  #64
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Where did you get the more detailed voting results? I didn't see them in the awards thread.
I did get it from the awards thread, specifically this post.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=104

Quote:
Due to conference-only play the 94-95 voting was conducted in two stages. An east/west vote gave 3 finalists, (6 for all-star defense) from each conference, which were then voted on by a committee of 15 PHWA members
.
Quote:
DEFENSE: Paul Coffey 75 (15-0-0); Chris Chelios 65 (11-3-1); Ray Bourque 45 (2-11-2); Larry Murphy 31 (2-5-6); Eric Desjardins 24 (0-6-6); Phil Housley 11 (0-2-5); Steve Duchesne 9 (0-2-3); Brian Leetch 8 (0-1-5); Uwe Krupp 1 (0-0-1); Gary Suter 1 (0-0-1); Curtis Leschyshyn 0 (0-0-0); Al MacInnis 0 (0-0-0)

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:13 PM
  #65
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Offensively. Bourque is the only defenseman in NHL history to lead his team in scoring 5 times and was the guy counted on to create offense for that entire team. Shutdown players zoned in on him instead of forwards most times and coaches built strategies specifically designed to keep Bourque out of the play in the playoffs because he was Boston's system. Whereas Lidstrom played a "supporting offense" role and was never the guy keyed in on by the best shutdown players while guys like Steve Y and Fedorov/Shanahan were on the ice and played on what was usually one of the highest scoring teams in the league(And a superstar filled team which even when Lidstrom was not on the ice, was a superstar team).

Tremendous advantage Bourque

Love the cherry picked statistics harping on Bourque's post seasons. All of which have been debunked in previous threads
Really groundbreaking stuff, here. Other teams keyed on Bourque?????? No way???? Wow!

Hmmm, Bourque was the "only guy to create offense" on teams with Rick Middleton, Barry Pedersen, Kenny Linseman, Adam Oates, Craig Janney, Cam Neely??????

Anyway, I guess in your world leading your team in scoring means more than leading all your peers in scoring. Great "debunking" job on that one. Too bad they don't hand out Norris trophies for team leading stats. Maybe in that regard Bourque could hold a candle to Lidstrom.

Nice theory of yours -- Lidstrom bested his peers because teams routinely left him alone so they can focus on Yzerman and Federov.

And pray tell me how you "debunk" playoff statistics? Crying about supporting casts is not one of them.

Sorry.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:15 PM
  #66
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
I
Something that also gets overlooked with Bourque are lackluster statistical postseasons with Boston from around 1992 to 1998.
That tends to happen to players who are far and away the best players on their teams.

During the regular season, a team might have 2 days to prepare for Bourque and adopt a general game plan to pressure him and limit his changes. During the playoffs, they have at least 2 weeks (often more, due to seeds getting locked into place early) to develop a detailed game plan around stopping him. It's not just a little pressure or physicality, but entire lineups being changed around to counter his presence. Offensive lines get split, home-ice is utilized to create favorable matchups, and offensive schemes are retooled to keep the puck away from him.

Add in the across-the-board scoring decline in the playoffs and it's hard to fault Bourque for experiencing a dropoff. Maybe we could find better evidence of choking if we looked at season-by-season results, but the global stats don't get it done.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:21 PM
  #67
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Oh, absolutely not, and I look forward to day when someone actually looks into Coffey's influence on Sergei Fedorov's offensive numbers.
Lidstrom had more influence on Coffey than Coffey had on Fedorov.

Coffey wouldn't have been able to do what he did in Detroit if he weren't paired with Lidstrom. Once he left Detroit, his offense dropped off considerably in Hartford (Coffey scored 8 in 20, while former Detroit teammate Steve Chiasson scored 14 in 18) before moving on to Philadelphia, where he finished the season with 26 in 37. He was third in Flyers defense scoring in the playoffs behind Niinimaa and Desjardins. The next season, he would post a mere 29 in 57. After a year split between the Hawks and Canes in 98-99, he did have one more good offensive season - posting 40 in 69. But that still put him second in defense scoring on the Canes behind Sean Hill, who actually received a 4th-place Norris vote.

Coffey's surprising resurgence in Detroit, followed by a sudden steep decline when he left, match up well with the explanation that he wasn't as good as advertised. Especially when you consider that he was replaced without consequence by Murphy, who was basically kicked out of Toronto. Granted, Detroit's style suited him well, but Coffey was still ahead in Norris votes in 1996-97 before disappearing completely while Murphy surged back up.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:24 PM
  #68
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I did get it from the awards thread, specifically this post.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=104

.
You clearly didn't see the word "Norris" in my post.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:25 PM
  #69
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I meant in real actual hockey terms, of course Coffey wins in fantasy terms.
Goals and assists are "fantasy terms" now? Are you really going that far to disparage someone like Paul Coffey?


Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Sergei Fedorov received the most first place votes for the Selke in 1992, and Guy Carbonneau received the most second place votes. Based on the logic you use here, Fedorov should have received the Selke as more voters considered him the best defensive forward than anyone else. And if it were a "pick one" situation, he would have.
You're purposefully misinterpreting my argument. There is a difference between a 1-0 voting system and a 9-7-5-3-1 voting system and a 5-3-1 voting system and a 5-5-3-3-1-1 voting system. Rob Blake would've won under any system in which the voters were asked to differentiate between the best and the second-best.

You are using a 5-5-3-3-1-1 voting system to claim that Lidstrom was voted the best defenseman in the league in his seventh season (one season earlier than Ray Bourque) when that was not the question put to a vote. The voters made themselves particularly clear when that was the question, and Rob Blake won the Norris Trophy.


The "logic" I use is that if you're going to claim someone was voted the best defenseman in the league, you should cite a vote in which people had to differentiate between the #1 and #2 defensemen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
But that's not how it works. Most notably about the 1998 ballot in particular? There were 53 ballots cast. Lidstrom was named on 53 ballots, 40-12-1. Blake was only named on 49, 39-8-2. Meaning that although he won the Norris, there were four writers that felt he wasn't even one of the six best defensemen in the league. There were 54 ballots cast for the Norris. Blake was on 50, Lidstrom on 52.
Did Blake have more detractors that would leave him off entirely? Yes. He was a minus player, and especially at the time, that was polarizing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
The fact is, though, that the PHWA votes on the best C, LW, RW, D, and G, and publishes the results as the postseason All-Star teams. Lidstrom had the most points from AS voting. If you can consider the first-team center to be voted the "best center" then you have to acknowledge the leading defenseman as voted "best defenseman" by the same method.
How does this not register with you? The PHWA differentiates with every other position who is #1, #2, and #3 except defensemen. When a member of the PHWA casts a ballot for Center, #1 has a value of 5 points, #2 has a value of 3 points, and #3 has a value of 1 point. When a member of the PHWA casts a ballot for Defense, #1 and #2 both have the value of 5 points, #3 and #4 both have the value of 3 points, and #5 and #6 both have the value of 1 point.

They are not voting for the best defenseman. They do that when they vote for the Norris. You know, the voting record where Rob Blake's 39 1st Team votes become 27 1st Place overall and 12 2nd Place overall votes. On 27 of those 39 1st Team All-Star votes, a PHWA member is having to award a second defenseman 5 points (the same amount they awarded Rob Blake), despite firmly believing Rob Blake to be the #1 defenseman in the league - as they have so stated on the Norris ballot.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:35 PM
  #70
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 15,193
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
That tends to happen to players who are far and away the best players on their teams.

During the regular season, a team might have 2 days to prepare for Bourque and adopt a general game plan to pressure him and limit his changes. During the playoffs, they have at least 2 weeks (often more, due to seeds getting locked into place early) to develop a detailed game plan around stopping him. It's not just a little pressure or physicality, but entire lineups being changed around to counter his presence. Offensive lines get split, home-ice is utilized to create favorable matchups, and offensive schemes are retooled to keep the puck away from him.

Add in the across-the-board scoring decline in the playoffs and it's hard to fault Bourque for experiencing a dropoff. Maybe we could find better evidence of choking if we looked at season-by-season results, but the global stats don't get it done.
I'm not implying "choking" at all. I'm just stating that Bourque's postseason production between 1988-1991 took a massive drop at both ends of the ice from 1992-1998.

You can't blame it on quality of teammates because the 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 Bruins were all above average to very good teams.

You also cant blame it on age because Bourque played some of the best defensive hockey of his career as a member of the Av's.

You also can't blame it on quality of opponents because the Bruins struggled more with teams like Buffalo and Florida than they did with New Jersey and Pittsburgh.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:36 PM
  #71
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Hmmm, Bourque was the "only guy to create offense" on teams with Rick Middleton, Barry Pedersen, Kenny Linseman, Adam Oates, Craig Janney, Cam Neely??????
Please enlighten us how Rick Middleton, Barry Pedersen and Ken Linseman helped the Bruins between 1992 and 1998.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:42 PM
  #72
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,115
vCash: 500
Can some on tell me why Scotty Bowman considers Paul Coffey only the 68th best canadian born player ever?Stats can be very misleading only the pros know the best players we as fans can argue who the best players are but the ones who are paid who who the best are really.

thom is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:49 PM
  #73
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,703
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
Can some on tell me why Scotty Bowman considers Paul Coffey only the 68th best canadian born player ever?Stats can be very misleading only the pros know the best players we as fans can argue who the best players are but the ones who are paid who who the best are really.
Do you have a link to Bowman's list?

And Bowman was a defense-first coach who famously couldn't stand Coffey.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 10:58 PM
  #74
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

Top 20 over a 3 year period of time between 92-95 is pretty decent in my mind but then again he wasn't losing Norris trophies to Carlyle.
You know what's better over a 3 year period between 92-95?
Being top 3
And being top 4 for almost as long as Lidstrom's ENTIRE career.

Did you happen to see who finished 2nd and 3rd in Norris voting in '81?
Do you think it's still a "weak" Norris when Potvin was #2 and Robinson #3?
Good luck with that.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-25-2012, 11:00 PM
  #75
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Do you have a link to Bowman's list?

And Bowman was a defense-first coach who famously couldn't stand Coffey.
And replaced him with Larry Murphy. Twice.

pdd 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 04:48 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.