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
11-26-2012, 04:54 PM
  #151
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 35,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Bolded is my exact point! Using Hart trophy voting as a proxy for the quality of a player's season is misguided from the start.
It's not a perfect proxy, but it certainly is a relevant factor.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 04:57 PM
  #152
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Bourque had Glen Wesley opposite him for many years. He was better in Boston than Stuart was at any point in his career. Bourque won four Norrises with Wesley, and none after. In 1986-87, with Reed Larson, he beat out an injury-shortened Mark Howe. It's possible that Howe wins the Norris on a full season; Howe had 58 points in 69 games, and was +57; that's 67 points and +66 on a full 80-game year, and he was already a VERY clear 2nd in Norris and AS voting, being named to the first team on 46/54 ballots and receiving 1 first-place Norris vote and 42/54 second place votes.

So none of this "Poor Ray Bourque, never playing with good partners." stuff. Lidstrom in his first 1 1/2 years had end-of-career McCrimmon, end-of-career Howe, and Steve Chiasson. Then Coffey was acquired, and played with Lidstrom until the end of 1995-96. Lidstrom didn't really have a regular everyday partner again until Murphy was acquired later on in 1996-97. That was the status quo until the end of 2000-01 when Murphy retired. Mathieu Dandenault got the job at that point; clearly a stellar partner and top-pairing defenseman. He had the job until the start of 2003-04, when Mathieu Schneider took his job. Schneider had the job for two more seasons before leaving and being replaced by Rafalski, who stayed with Lidstrom except for the one year Lids played with Stuart. White played with Lidstrom this past season.

So Rafalski was the only really significant defenseman that Lidstrom played with. Murphy and Schneider posted solid performances, but both were heavily buoyed by a prime Lidstrom.

And it wasn't as if Bourque was short of talented partners after Wesley left; he played significant time with Don Sweeney in the post-Wesley years; Sweeney was one of the league's top defensive defensemen. Later, Sweeney moved back to the second pair and Bourque had Kyle McLaren - when he was actually a good young all-around defenseman (before he retired at 30). If Bourque played with the "nothing" partners that are being suggested, his offensive production would have been significantly lower. Think "Nicklas Lidstrom playing with defensive liability Mathieu Schneider" lower (38 points in 81 games, second-worst in his career after 1992-93, when he played the defensive role for Howe and then Coffey). Bourque never had a partner close to as bad as Dandenault overall, while Lidstrom won two Norrises with Dandenault. Bourque didn't have a partner within miles of Schneider's defensive weakness either, and Lidstrom won two Norrises with him also.

Boston may have been weaker overall, but Bourque's partners certainly weren't weak.
Bourque had Wesley for a total of 6 3/4 years out of 22 and an aged Park for a few years. After that it gets pretty thin and no where even remotely close to what Lidstrom enjoyed.
You're not seriously attemping to downplay the defense corps and partners that Lidstrom had in Detroit from '92-'11 are you...like seriously?
That's a joke my friend.

Just off the top of my head...
Chelios
Coffey
Raflaski
Murphy
Fetisov
Konstantinov
Rouse
Hatcher
Schneider
McCrimmon
Howe
Chaisson
Duchesne
Kronwall

Ridiculous!
Some of the defense corps Lidstrom was a part of were as good or better than what Bourque had on some of those Canada Cup teams for pete's sake heh


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-26-2012 at 05:08 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 05:34 PM
  #153
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Bourque had Wesley for a total of 6 3/4 years out of 22 and an aged Park for a few years. After that it gets pretty thin and no where even remotely close to what Lidstrom enjoyed.
You're not seriously attemping to downplay the defense corps and partners that Lidstrom had in Detroit from '92-'11 are you...like seriously?
That's a joke my friend.

Just off the top of my head...
Chelios
Coffey
Raflaski
Murphy
Fetisov
Konstantinov
Rouse
Hatcher
Schneider
McCrimmon
Howe
Chaisson
Duchesne
Kronwall
In bold are players Lidstrom played minimal amounts of time with. Beyond that, Howe and McCrimmon were far from star defensemen anymore when they were his partners.

Quote:
Ridiculous!
Some of the defense corps Lidstrom was a part of were as good or better than what Bourque had on some of those Canada Cup teams for pete's sake heh
I'm sure it was. I mean, if we remove Bourque from the 1987 CC, and Lidstrom from the 95-96 Wings, we can then look and see Coffey, who clearly was much better in the mid 1990s than in the mid 1980s. Everybody knows that. But Konstantinov, 90s Fetisov, followed by Bergevin, and Rouse. That's compared to Murphy, Patrick, Crossman, and Hartsburg all in their primes. Crossman was the only regular who hadn't received Norris votes in 86-87.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 06:04 PM
  #154
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
It's not a perfect proxy, but it certainly is a relevant factor.
1988-89 disagrees.

Mario Lemieux was the Art Ross winner and First-Team center.
Wayne Gretzky won the Hart as MVP, and was the Second-Team center.
Steve Yzerman won the Pearson as Best Player.

Which player had the best season? They all win by different measures. So who was best, who was worst?

ES scoring has Lemieux a couple points ahead of Gretzky, with Yzerman smack-dab in the middle (and leading in goals).

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 06:37 PM
  #155
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
In bold are players Lidstrom played minimal amounts of time with. Beyond that, Howe and McCrimmon were far from star defensemen anymore when they were his partners.
So what!
Compared to what Bourque had total, it's ridiculous.
You are seriously freakin delusional at this point.



Quote:
I'm sure it was. I mean, if we remove Bourque from the 1987 CC, and Lidstrom from the 95-96 Wings, we can then look and see Coffey, who clearly was much better in the mid 1990s than in the mid 1980s. Everybody knows that. But Konstantinov, 90s Fetisov, followed by Bergevin, and Rouse. That's compared to Murphy, Patrick, Crossman, and Hartsburg all in their primes. Crossman was the only regular who hadn't received Norris votes in 86-87.
As I said, it's not far off and I'm not just talking about the 90's.
Look at the D-corps in the early 2000's as well.

What's your comeback on this...Bourque had Wesley for 6-7 years, Sweeney for few years and Park for a couple?
Honestly, just ridiculous!

You're reaching on a monumental scale!

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 06:50 PM
  #156
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,424
vCash: 500
I'd be interested in seeing somebody compare the number of times Bourque and Lidstrom's teammates placed in Norris voting.

A reasonable and consistent threshold for minimum number of votes should be applied to ensure that the record isn't skewed by (for example) Mathieu Schneider earning a single 4th place vote in 2007.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:01 PM
  #157
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I'd be interested in seeing somebody compare the number of times Bourque and Lidstrom's teammates placed in Norris voting.

A reasonable and consistent threshold for minimum number of votes should be applied to ensure that the record isn't skewed by (for example) Mathieu Schneider earning a single 4th place vote in 2007.
More relevant, IMO, is looking into the roles of their specific defensive partners. Outside of perhaps 2 or 3 years of his career, Lidstrom has been paired with an offensive defenseman, and carried the defensive duties, the first guy back.

Bourque typically played with a defensive defenseman (who usually get ignored for Norris votes), which allowed him to play a far more offensive role.

I think both were utilized to their strengths, but I do think it is important to acknowledge their roles were very different throughout most of their careers.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:03 PM
  #158
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,793
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Interesting question. It would certainly seem that Hart =/= best when it comes to defensemen (and probably goalies too...). Hart votes seem to go to guys who were not just Norris winners, but also brought an extra "oomph" that put their teams over the top. But there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it, with defense-first guys like Langway and Lidstrom getting recognition along with 4th-forward guys like Coffey and Howe. Some were on crummy teams, some were on great teams.

I'm not sure what to make of it, TBH. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is that Langway was simply a one-off phenomenon (edit: a phenomenon in the sense that R71 describes above, not in the sense of a voting irregularity) and the rest of the results were reasonably indicative of performance. Obviously that's an interpretation that favors Bourque, but I don't see a good reason to think his perennial Hart consideration wasn't linked to perennial superiority over the rest of the pack.
Did you mean Housley when you said Howe?

Mark Howe was in no way a "4th-forward" guy.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:20 PM
  #159
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,793
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.
Got a crystal ball, eh?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 07:58 PM
  #160
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Got a crystal ball, eh?
It does not take a clairvoyant to see Lidstrom would have produced more if not for almost always playing the defensive-first role with his defensive partner. His PP prowess clearly shows he could produce with the best offensive defensemen in the league when placed in an offensive role. Lidstrom was utilized correctly for the success of his team, but not for his media recognition. Paired with a defense-first defenseman for most of his career, Lidstrom would have produced a lot more, no doubt in my mind, he had the offensive talent, and I am sure that would have led to even greater media recognition and more votes, but that would not necessarily make him a better defenseman.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 08:54 PM
  #161
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
This whole list you reference, which posters here came up with, is flawed due to not accounting for obvious and substantial difference in the talent pool. Your "top 20" list is based on this and therefore I don't reference it as fact or take it seriously (sorry).

Drop Lidstrom's competition such as Pronger, Chara, Weber and/or Niedermayer back in Harvey's time and they dominate that league. Look at the combination of size and mobility the first 3 have and the hockey sense all of them have shown. It was unheard of back then.

Even the top 20 Dman list in the last project, Lidstrom's competition was much better as Harvey lost more h2h battles with Kelly, his 1st 4 years against Harvey was absolute, while he was a Dman.

Maybe the voters had it wrong, there is very little data to prove one way or another, I didn't see those years and no doubt only a handful of posters here did see either of them in the early to mid 50's

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:12 PM
  #162
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
It does not take a clairvoyant to see Lidstrom would have produced more if not for almost always playing the defensive-first role with his defensive partner. His PP prowess clearly shows he could produce with the best offensive defensemen in the league when placed in an offensive role. Lidstrom was utilized correctly for the success of his team, but not for his media recognition. Paired with a defense-first defenseman for most of his career, Lidstrom would have produced a lot more, no doubt in my mind, he had the offensive talent, and I am sure that would have led to even greater media recognition and more votes, but that would not necessarily make him a better defenseman.
Lidstrom's ability to produce on the PP does NOT mean he would have been able to produce more at even strength to the same degree if allowed to.
To be able to produce that level of offense at even strength is a rare ability and being able to do it without their defense suffering is even rarer.
As long as we're stating opinions, I have no doubt in my mind that if Lidstrom had have tried to produce at even strength on Bourque's level, he wouldn't have been able to maintain a defensive level to match Bourque's.
Lidstrom did NOT have Bourque's puck possession skills and Bourque was one of the very best at risk management I have ever seen.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:16 PM
  #163
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
This whole list you reference, which posters here came up with, is flawed due to not accounting for obvious and substantial difference in the talent pool. Your "top 20" list is based on this and therefore I don't reference it as fact or take it seriously (sorry).

Drop Lidstrom's competition such as Pronger, Chara, Weber and/or Niedermayer back in Harvey's time and they dominate that league. Look at the combination of size and mobility the first 3 have and the hockey sense all of them have shown. It was unheard of back then.
Yeah, yeah and none of the players today will stand up to the cyborgs playing 50 years from now.
It's a garbage argument and there's a whole sticky on this exact kind of BS!

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:32 PM
  #164
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Bourque's ATOI playoffs

1998-99: 32:05
1999-00: 29:38
2000-01: 28:32
Colorado would use Bourque less during blowouts in 2000-01.

25:08 - 4-1
24:55 - 4-1
23:36 - 5-1
23:35 - 5-0
23:21 - 5-1
23:08 - 4-0

And his numbers in the 2000 playoffs are obviously dragged down by getting injured in Game 3 against Detroit. Excluding his injury game puts him at 30:30.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:34 PM
  #165
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Lidstrom's ability to produce on the PP does NOT mean he would have been able to produce more at even strength to the same degree if allowed to.
To be able to produce that level of offense at even strength is a rare ability and being able to do it without their defense suffering is even rarer.
As long as we're stating opinions, I have no doubt in my mind that if Lidstrom had have tried to produce at even strength on Bourque's level, he wouldn't have been able to maintain a defensive level to match Bourque's.
Lidstrom did NOT have Bourque's puck possession skills and Bourque was one of the very best at risk management I have ever seen.
Sure - I think Lidstrom would never match Bourque offensively, but also that Bourque would never match Lidtrom defensively... No matter their roles or linemates.

I get tempted to put Liddtrom ahead of Bourque for two reasons - 1) He is clearly better defensively, and that is just from watching them 2) He was better in the playoffs - it's like the Roy vs. Hasek playoff argument - one clearly has more of a winning pedigree, despite strength of teams.

It's not the peak of Bourque that tips the scales for me, b/c I believe Lidstrom has a comparable peak (especially if value defensive play from a defenseman higher than offense, and you place a significant premium on playoffs), but the number of years Bourque spent in his prime as a top 5 defenseman. 19 years is tough to overcome - and I'm not sure Harvey or Shore can overcome that either.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:42 PM
  #166
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
You're right, I exaggerated. There would have been a vote. And you're right, as a leading scorer Neely would have been in the conversation.

Context for Neely leading the team in scoring:

1st round vs Hartford (7 games) - 4-6-10
2nd round vs Montreal (5 games) - 3-2-5
3rd round vs Washington (4 games) - 5-4-9
4th round vs Edmonton (5 games) - 0-4-4

Zoom in on that Finals performance...

Neely in the Finals - 5gp, 0-4-4
Bourque in the Finals - 5gp, 3-2-5

When you consider which of these guys is the winger and which is the defenseman, it becomes pretty obvious which one would have taken home the hardware. Scoring a bunch of points in a sweep over the sub-.500 Caps isn't equal to scoring a bunch of points over the Oilers in the Final.




I'm sorry, but no they aren't. They're not even all that close.

In 1990, Bourque lost the closest Hart vote ever, 20 years after the last defenseman won it. He SWEPT the Norris ballot 63-0-0. Oddly his all-star ballot was 62-1-0, go figure.

In 2002, Lidstrom did not receive a single Hart vote, 2 years after the last defenseman won it. He won the Norris with a 29-20-7-2-1 ballot over his teammate, Chelios, who had 28-10-13-4-4. That's a virtual dead heat in #1 and top-3 votes, compared to a 40-year-old on his own team. He had a bigger lead in AS voting, but Rob Blake still managed 25 1st place votes. Not "very comparable" to a clean sweep in either category, let alone a near-miss on the Hart.

On the team front, Bourque played on a team that had one (1) other Hall of Famer, and a weak one at that in Neely. Neely was 1st in points with 92, Bourque was 2nd with 84, and nobody else on the team scored over 62. In that role, Bourque led the team to a President's Trophy and then a Finals run where, again, he was the Smythe favorite for his team.

In 2002, Lidstrom played on a team with four current Hall of Famers, three more who will surely be inducted in the near future, and yet two more who have strong cases in the long-term. A total of 7-9 Hall of Fame teammates on that roster. The Wings won the President's Trophy, and then rolled over an easy Finals opponent -- and I feel no shame in saying that, considering everyone was shocked when the Hurricanes won a single game -- with Lidstrom winning the Smythe.

Recap: Bourque played on a significantly less talented team, and was far less dispensable to his team, yet achieved similar team results up until the point that his Smythe-worthy performance was simply not enough to singlehandedly win the Finals. For that, Bourque received significantly more individual recognition, coming within a hair of winning the Hart which would have made threads like this one nonexistent. So while certain elements of those seasons are comparable, as a whole they are clearly of two distinct classes.



Bottom line here is that you hold team results higher than individual performance. Which is fine, and you're welcome to that opinion. It's the same thing that had people pumping up Niedermayer and Messier when they retired.
Bourque was great in 90 and got close to a Hart, scores 10 more points in 91 and finishes a distant 4th in Hart voting with a 0-3-6.

Macinnis increases his scoring lead over Ray from 6 in 90 to 9 in 91 and ends up a very close 2nd to Ray ion the Norris voting.

Was Bourque that much different from 90-91?

Was Al?

The voting results sure seem to indicate that there was but that's were relying too much on any individual season to prove any point becomes really murky IMO.

I doubt it but in those 2 years dramatically different voting results, probably more reasons for that than simply Bourque's play as a player IMO.

I actually thought that DaninCanada was talking about Ray and Nick in the plyoffs for 90 and 02.

Ray would ahve been my pick for Conn smythe in 90 but some people are glossing over that Nick played 31:10 MPG in thsoe playoffs, just 12 seconds shy of being a full 5 minutes more than the next highest Dman in Chelios and 8:50 more than Federov.

I'm not sure that we can say that either performance was greater than the other guys in the playoffs in 90 or 02.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:49 PM
  #167
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I get tempted to put Liddtrom ahead of Bourque for two reasons - 1) He is clearly better defensively, and that is just from watching them 2) He was better in the playoffs - it's like the Roy vs. Hasek playoff argument - one clearly has more of a winning pedigree, despite strength of teams.
It is NOT like Roy vs Hasek. Roy has a much greater gap to Hasek (or anyone else for that matter) in the playoffs than Lidstrom has on Bourque.

One thing I would really like to know is where the notion that Bourque wasn't elite defensively is coming from?
The difference between Lidstrom's defense and Bourque's defense is not much, especially factoring in puck possession (which is part of playing defense BTW).
Tell me, what's more effective, playing against the other teams best players in your zone or playing against them in their zone and the neutral zone?
There really is a reason Bourque's GF-GA/60mins, his +/- and adjusted +/- numbers are all superior or equal to Lidstrom's.
Factor in Bourque's even strength offense on top of this and it's pretty clear cut IMO.


Lidstrom was a great, great D-man, top 5 in my book for sure but I'm sorry, that's where it ends.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:55 PM
  #168
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
3 Norris trophies, 3 Runner up, two 3rd place finishes and 7th/8th the other two despite missing 20+ games one season. Show me someone else close enough for Bourque not to be considered far and away the best defenseman in the 90's.
My top 5 Demn for the 90's (91-00 since the decade ends in ten, if people use 00-99 it might be slightly different) are

Bourque
Stevens after this not sure of the order off the top of my head

Chelios
MaCinnis
Lidstrom

Leetch is close as is Murphy and Desjardins.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 09:56 PM
  #169
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Colorado would use Bourque less during blowouts in 2000-01.

25:08 - 4-1
24:55 - 4-1
23:36 - 5-1
23:35 - 5-0
23:21 - 5-1
23:08 - 4-0

And his numbers in the 2000 playoffs are obviously dragged down by getting injured in Game 3 against Detroit. Excluding his injury game puts him at 30:30.
Is Bourque unique among star defensemen in being used less in blowouts?

Should Bourque get a free pass for getting injured, especially compared to Lidstrom, one of hockey's all-time great iron men?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-26-2012 at 10:14 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:04 PM
  #170
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Norris trophy shares - 1989-90 to 1998-99

DefensemanNorris share
Ray Bourque 467
Chris Chelios 262
Brian Leetch 256
Al MacInnis 235
Scott Stevens 146
Nicklas Lidstrom 132
Paul Coffey 122
Chris Pronger 78
Rob Blake 75
Larry Murphy 71

I hate saying "and it's not even close", but it actually applies in this case. Bourque lapped the field, putting a great distance between the narrowly-separated runners-up (Chelios, Leetch and MacInnis).

I realize that this only includes the regular season, and Leetch likely makes up some ground taking the playoffs into account, but Bourque remains the best defenseman by a wide margin.
I have Bourque as my guy in the 90's but really feel that Stevens got shortchanged in Norris voting during the latter half of his career when he became a more shutdown type of guy.

I also use 91-00 for the 90's, it a minor technical point that you don't finish a decade until the 10th year is over, but understand that it's common for people to use the 90-99.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:10 PM
  #171
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Or in 2001-02, when in addition to superstar forward Brendan Shanahan, they're on a team in which somewhere between 45-53% of the voters believe that teammate Chris Chelios is the better player.
We know what the voters did that year but do you actually believe that Chelios was better than Nick in the regular season or the playoffs?

It's quite clear who the Dman was in Detroit that year and it wasn't Chelios, as good as a year he had it was kind of like Fetisov's last "great year", in a perfect Detroit situation.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:17 PM
  #172
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It is NOT like Roy vs Hasek. Roy has a much greater gap to Hasek (or anyone else for that matter) in the playoffs than Lidstrom has on Bourque.

One thing I would really like to know is where the notion that Bourque wasn't elite defensively is coming from?
The difference between Lidstrom's defense and Bourque's defense is not much, especially factoring in puck possession (which is part of playing defense BTW).
Tell me, what's more effective, playing against the other teams best players in your zone or playing against them in their zone and the neutral zone?
There really is a reason Bourque's GF-GA/60mins, his +/- and adjusted +/- numbers are all superior or equal to Lidstrom's.
Factor in Bourque's even strength offense on top of this and it's pretty clear cut IMO.


Lidstrom was a great, great D-man, top 5 in my book for sure but I'm sorry, that's where it ends.
Bourque was elite defensively but he was never as great as Stevens or Chelios, and Lidstrom was clearly better than them, defensively, IMO.

Lidstrom was a top player on 4 Cup winning teams, winning a Conn Smythe, rare for a defenseman, once. Roy played a role on 1 stacked Cup winning team, with better runs on losing teams. Sounds very similar to Roy vs. Hasek, playoff-wise. Bourque's production dropped off in the playoffs, but not Lidstrom's.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:24 PM
  #173
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Should Bourque get a free pass for getting injured, especially compared to Lidstrom, one of hockey's all-time great iron men?
Yes, he should get a free pass in not having a game during which he was injured and subsequently only played 19 minutes skew his average ice time in a 13 game sample where he otherwise played 30:30 on average with a median slightly higher.

Like, absolutely you should look at the average without the injury game. I don't see why that's even in question, really.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:25 PM
  #174
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,485
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Probably true. It would be interesting to identify some all-time great defenseman seasons which didn't get Hart recognition and try to figure out why.

Still... Orr won three of them with Esposito. Coffey stole votes from peak-aged Gretzky, and had a high finish while on that all-time-great 1996 Wings team. Of course, Bourque nearly won it in 1990 with a peak-aged Neely on his team. Yes, it's hard to accomplish, but it has been accomplished before.

Lidstrom had Hart votes in 2000, 2001, and 2003... but not 2002. So it's hard for me to buy into this idea that he was simply being overshadowed by hype that went to his forwards. If he was good enough to have a high Hart finish, someone, anyone should have put his name on the ballot.




Pronger...
Pronger had a great year but Bure led the NHL in goals by 14 despite playing in only 74 games. Hull (Brett) won a Hart for a similar feat

Jagr leads the NHL in scoring but plays only 63 games.

Sakic only plays in 60 games, Forsberg 49

Al MacInnis plays in only 61 games, no danger in taking attention away from Pronger.

Pronger had a great year but other things also happened, or didn't in terms of GP, to make his Hart possible as well.

Heck, Pronger was better than Lidstrom perhaps but not by the gap that teh voting for hart suggests, the Norris voting has it more right IMO in terms of points

Chris Pronger 565 (53-5-0-0-0)
Nicklas Lidstom 400 (5-46-5-1-0)

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:26 PM
  #175
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Bourque was elite defensively but he was never as great as Stevens or Chelios, and Lidstrom was clearly better than them, defensively, IMO.
Lidstrom was not CLEARLY better than Stevens defensively!

Quote:
Lidstrom was a top player on 4 Cup winning teams, winning a Conn Smythe, rare for a defenseman, once. Roy played a role on 1 stacked Cup winning team, with better runs on losing teams. Sounds very similar to Roy vs. Hasek, playoff-wise. Bourque's production dropped off in the playoffs, but not Lidstrom's.
And the other 3 Cup wins and 2 other Conn Smythes? Lidstrom is NOT comparable to Roy in any way, shape or form!
And Lidstrom certainly does NOT have the same gap to Bourque that Ropy has to Hasek, not even remotely!!!

Rhiessan71 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 11:59 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.