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, 10:28 PM
  #176
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
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.
Pfft. No, it doesn't. Roy has three of the most statistically dominant playoff runs by a goaltender since save percentage became an official statistic. On what planet does Lidstrom approach that? That's like having three Brian Leetch 1994 runs.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:31 PM
  #177
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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)
You realize that is pretty much as big of a gap as possible with Lidstrom being favored by less than 9% of the voters.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:35 PM
  #178
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
Do you even read what you're writing? It's not clear at all. It's 45% minimum favoring Chelios over Lidstrom with as high as 53% favoring Chelios over Lidstrom. And yes, I do believe Chelios was better, and I'm nowhere close to being alone in thinking that.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:37 PM
  #179
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Langway was certainly the Caps MVP during the '80s: They went from a perennial loser to perennial playoff contender the moment he put on a Caps sweater.
This is true but people forget that Jarvis, Engblom and Laughlin also went to the Caps in that trade for Ryan Walter and Rick Green.

Scott Stevens also had a strong rookie year. Langway was the most important piece but nearly 1/3 of the team was brand new or emerging in their early careers as well.

In 83/84 Langway's lead as the Caps best Dman is closed quite a bit by Stevens IMO as well but that's a whole other matter.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:41 PM
  #180
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is true but people forget that Jarvis, Engblom and Laughlin also went to the Caps in that trade for Ryan Walter and Rick Green.

Scott Stevens also had a strong rookie year. Langway was the most important piece but nearly 1/3 of the team was brand new or emerging in their early careers as well.

In 83/84 Langway's lead as the Caps best Dman is closed quite a bit by Stevens IMO as well but that's a whole other matter.
And Langway garnering a first team all-star nod in the Canada Cup was just a fluke right?
I mean, the explanation that Langway was just that dominant defensively wouldn't be the simplest and most logical one or anything

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:45 PM
  #181
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This is true but people forget that Jarvis, Engblom and Laughlin also went to the Caps in that trade for Ryan Walter and Rick Green.

Scott Stevens also had a strong rookie year. Langway was the most important piece but nearly 1/3 of the team was brand new or emerging in their early careers as well.

In 83/84 Langway's lead as the Caps best Dman is closed quite a bit by Stevens IMO as well but that's a whole other matter.
And Engblom was traded six games into the next season (83-84) for Larry Murphy while Jarvis in that same season played on the fourth line and acted as a faceoff specialist. Laughlin played on the second line with Haworth and Carpenter and while he chipped in some timely goals he didn't make that big of an impact.


Last edited by Morgoth Bauglir: 11-26-2012 at 10:51 PM.
Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:47 PM
  #182
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And Langway garnering a first team all-star nod in the Canada Cup was just a fluke right?
I mean, the explanation that Langway was just that dominant defensively wouldn't be the simplest and most logical one or anything
Langway is probably the best pure defender I've ever seen. Better even than Serge Savard who I've also seen quite a bit of.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:48 PM
  #183
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You know what, I have been itching to say the same thing for a long time now but haven't because I knew how it would be received.
I too thought Yzerman was more important to the 2002 team than Lidstrom. Stevie seemed to will his team and his body to the Cup that year.
True Yzerman played well and was inspirational but this was his last "great" performance and I really wonder if it was indeed better than Lidstrom or even Federov"s.

I don't recall it that way and the stats don't seem to support it either.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:50 PM
  #184
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
1988-89 disagrees.
Not really.

Gretzky - 267 (40-22-1)
Lemieux - 187 (18-27-16)
Yzerman - 109 (5-14-42)

Someone who knew nothing about the 1988-89 seasons, or the winners of the Ross, All-Star or Pearson races could look at the Hart voting and see which three forwards were considered heavyweights that season, and probably make a reasonable guess that there wasn't a clear-cut best among them.

Likewise, I'm going to guess that Chelios was the highest-rated defenseman that season. Let me check... yep, won the Norris and had the best All Star ballot. Whaddayaknow.

What's left of your post is that the MVP isn't necessarily the best player, but we had established that already, way upthread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Did you mean Housley when you said Howe?

Mark Howe was in no way a "4th-forward" guy.
He wasn't, and Coffey wasn't in Housley-mode in those seasons either. I was just pointing to the diversity of style among Hart-contending defensemen, and used an unfortunate phrase there.


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.

I don't know about the threshold, but here are full results.

Bourque's teammates
1979-80 - Dick Redmond, Bos 5
1980-81 - Brad Park 14
1981-82 - Brad Park 1 (0-0-1)
1982-83 - Mike O'Connell 6, Mike Milbury 5, Brad Park 1 (0-0-1)
1983-84 - Mike O’Connell 3 (0-1-0)
1984-85 - none
1985-86 - none
1986-87 - none
1987-88 - none
1988-89 - none
1989-90 - none
1990-91 - none
1991-92 - none
1992-93 - none
1993-94 - none
1994-95 - none
1995-96 - none
1996-97 - none
1997-98 - none
1998-99 - none
1999-00 - Sandis Ozolinsh 1 (0-0-0-0-1) *for Bourque's 14 games in Colorado
2000-01 - Rob Blake 176 (1-11-8-14-7) *for Blake's 13 games in Colorado

Lidstrom's teammates
1991-92 - none
1992-93 - Paul Coffey 4 (0-1-1) *for Coffey's 30 games in Detroit
1993-94 - Paul Coffey 1 (0-0-1)
1994-95 - Paul Coffey 69 (12-3-0) *winner
1995-96 - Vladimir Konstantinov 131 (2-6-7-10-4), Paul Coffey 83 (0-4-2-12-9);
1996-97 - Vladimir Konstantinov 178 (2-10-13-6-5)
1997-98 - Larry Murphy 47 (1-0-3-5-7)
1998-99 - Larry Murphy 21 (0-1-1-3-0), Chris Chelios 1 (0-0-0-0-1)
1999-00 - Chris Chelios 54 (0-2-5-3-6)
2000-01 - none
2000-02 - Chris Chelios 431 (28-10-13-4-4)
2002-03 - Chris Chelios 1 (0-0-0-0-1)
2003-04 - Mathieu Schneider 144 (1-2-17-7-14)
2005-06 - Mathieu Schneider 111 (4-5-1-4-19)
2006-07 - Mathieu Schneider 3 (0-0-0-1-0)
2007-08 - Brian Rafalski 25 (0-1-1-2-7)
2008-09 - Brian Rafalski 27 (1-0-0-4-5)
2009-10 - Brian Rafalski 12 (0-0-2-0-2)
2010-11 - none
2011-12 - none


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 11-26-2012 at 11:01 PM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:51 PM
  #185
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,390
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.
Funny, Bourque was paired with many different partners and yet his scoring numbers and +/- are very consistent over his career. His numbers didn't suffer when playing with an 18 year-old Kyle McLaren or an 18 year-old Alain Cote or a barely capable Allen Pedersen or an over-the-hill Jim Wiemer. Why assume a different partner would affect Lidstrom's numbers so dramatically?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:56 PM
  #186
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Honestly, I'm not sure the standards have changed all that much.

We agree that Langway was a more of an MVP type than a Norris type, right? I mean, the guy made a night-and-day difference to his organization in a way that few players have ever paralleled. And we all agree, I hope, that Bourque was similarly important to the Bruins.

So strike those two guys from the list and what do you have since the WHA merger? A couple of token nods to Coffey and Howe, then many years later a "perfect storm" win by Pronger and a nod to Lidstrom.

It seems to me that the standard has been pretty much the same, that defensemen just don't get a whole lot of consideration at all except for the occasional 4th-place finish after a particularly strong year. The record is skewed by Langway and Bourque, both of whom went above and beyond having a good season and got into the realm of changing the entire direction of their organizations.

And we should note that Langway got that recognition by putting up virtually zero offense, so out the window goes the "flashy players" theory.
it's true that Langway wasn't flashy but Langway was the poster boy for the whole media movement and talk in the early 80's about the complaint of the Norris going to the highest scoring Dman all of the time. there was even considerable talk about making a best "defensive Dman award."

Langways impact on the caps is over rated IMO as well, there were a lot of positive changes, and players, that came in the same season as Langway.

I'm with TDMM on this one Dman consideration for the Hart trophy doesn't seem to be very consistent over time and the results do give some indication of this.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:02 PM
  #187
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You wouldn't happen to have Lidstrom's Norris shares for 99/00-08/09 handy?
Would love to see if he even comes close to Bourque's total and I already know what the competition on such a list would look like compared to the above heh.
Looks like it wasn't close (kind of like the Weber/Lidstrom robbed Norris poll) but nice try of deflection there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Norris votes, 2000-2009

DefensemanNorris share
Nicklas Lidstrom 674
Scott Niedermayer 224
Zdeno Chara 208
Chris Pronger 197
Rob Blake 136
Sergei Gonchar 112
Al MacInnis 90
Chris Chelios 79
Mike Green 78
Dion Phaneuf 55
Perhaps not as impressive as the 90 guys after Bourque, but no slouchs either, but quite a substantial % difference in the lead as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:02 PM
  #188
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
True Yzerman played well and was inspirational but this was his last "great" performance and I really wonder if it was indeed better than Lidstrom or even Federov"s.

I don't recall it that way and the stats don't seem to support it either.
What are you talking about?
Yzerman, despite playing on one leg, led the team in scoring by 4 points over Shanny and Feds and 7 ahead of Lidstrom.
Yzerman played on average 30 seconds a game more than Feds on the PK and 20 seconds less per game on the PP.

Out of the extra 5 or so minutes that Lidstrom played over Chelios, most of it was PP minutes and despite Chelios getting almost a 1/3 of the PP time Lidstrom got, Nick only outscored Chelios by a mere 2 points. Chelios has one less point at even strength and was a +15 to Lidstrom's +6.

How many times have I heard about Lidstrom's leadership being a huge factor in Detroit's '08 Cup (something I agree with BTW).
Say that and then turn around and downplay Stevie's leadership and what he accomplished in '02 is so hypocritical, it's not even funny!

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:11 PM
  #189
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Looks like it wasn't close (kind of like the Weber/Lidstrom robbed Norris poll) but nice try of deflection there.



Perhaps not as impressive as the 90 guys after Bourque, but no slouchs either, but quite a substantial % difference in the lead as well.
Seriously? A little context please.
First off, those numbers for the 2000's reflect almost the entirety of Lidstrom's prime while the 90's numbers reflect just over half of Bourque's prime.
Second...look at the players on those lists! One list is not like the other "Perhaps not as impressive" indeed, understatement much?
How many of the guys even played through the entire 2000's? How many were even up for Norris consideration all 10 years?
Compared to Chelios, Stevens, Mac and Leetch who all played the entire 90's.

I knew what I was asking for in that list for Lidstrom. I knew he would have a huge gap, I just wanted to see exactly who his competition was by the numbers and it's even worse than I thought.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-26-2012 at 11:20 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:16 PM
  #190
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
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.
Edit: already done but it doesn't really tell us what we already did not know did it?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:21 PM
  #191
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Edit: already done but it doesn't really tell us what we already did not know did it?
No it doesn't and even you knew better than to try that particular argument

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:22 PM
  #192
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
it's true that Langway wasn't flashy but Langway was the poster boy for the whole media movement and talk in the early 80's about the complaint of the Norris going to the highest scoring Dman all of the time. there was even considerable talk about making a best "defensive Dman award."
While that is true, at the same time there comes a point where this all kind starts to smell like excuse-making. Lidstrom was supposedly robbed of Hart consideration due to his defensive orientation, but when an even more defensive guy has multiple Hart-contending seasons it's because his era favored defensive defensemen, which of course does nothing to explain why the supposedly defensively-inferior Bourque managed more high finishes than both of them combined. Round and round it goes.

On one hand, I don't think anyone has argued that Hart voting is a substitute for Norris or All Star results. It's clearly measuring something different, and something important about the caliber of player involved. So I understand why there would be some misgivings about reading too much into it.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the results are being over-analyzed to find hidden voting patterns where none are likely to exist. It's quite simply an MVP award. Guys who had "most valuable" seasons are likely to win it. There's no institutional bias of such magnitude that it washes out Lidstrom's entire 20 years of not contending for a Hart. The results just are what they are.

Quote:
Langways impact on the caps is over rated IMO as well, there were a lot of positive changes, and players, that came in the same season as Langway.
Everything, and I mean everything, I have found about Langway indicates that his role in transforming the Caps was completely legitimate. Including contemporary media articles, voting results, statistical results, and eyewitness accounts from those who followed him at the time. Again, this kind of hindsight dismissal falls into the category of "it makes Lidstrom look less superior, let's find a way to revise it".

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:26 PM
  #193
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
While that is true, at the same time there comes a point where this all kind starts to smell like excuse-making. Lidstrom was supposedly robbed of Hart consideration due to his defensive orientation, but when an even more defensive guy has multiple Hart-contending seasons it's because his era favored defensive defensemen, which of course does nothing to explain why the supposedly defensively-inferior Bourque managed more high finishes than both of them combined.

On one hand, I don't think anyone has argued that Hart voting is a substitute for Norris or All Star results. It's clearly measuring something different, and something important about the caliber of player involved. So I understand why there would be some misgivings about reading too much into it.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the results are being over-analyzed to find hidden voting patterns where none are likely to exist. It's quite simply an MVP award. Guys who had "most valuable" seasons are likely to win it. There's no institutional bias of such magnitude that it washes out Lidstrom's entire 20 years of not contending for a Hart. The results just are what they are.



Everything, and I mean everything, I have found about Langway indicates that his role in transforming the Caps was completely legitimate. Including contemporary media articles, voting results, statistical results, and eyewitness accounts from those who followed him at the time. Again, this kind of hindsight dismissal falls into the category of "it makes Lidstrom look less superior, let's find a way to revise it".
If it smells like ****, tastes like **** and feels like ****, it's prolly ****!

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:27 PM
  #194
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
If it smells like ****, tastes like **** and feels like ****, it's prolly ****!
Nanuck of the North lol

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:29 PM
  #195
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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!
You don't understand the sticky and the use of the term cyborgs is an advanced term for your current comments on the "robots" which you have used on occasion.

If anything that violates the sticky in reverse IMO.

Different players play in different eras and it's unfortunate that many treat a season (and possibility of dominance ect...) the same in 57,87 and 07.

I say this in terms of Bourque and Lidstrom in their 2nd half of their careers.

The clutch and grab era that Bourque winded down in is actually beneficial for Dman, especially dominant ones. The faster pace and rule changes was supposed to hurt Lidstrom and he actually thrived in it.

Also the 90's saw the total full integration of the NHL with new talent form other non traditional markets, it didn't include the entire 90's though and we can say that it does include the entire 00 decade.
The difference might be small but it's still there.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:31 PM
  #196
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You don't understand the sticky and the use of the term cyborgs is an advanced term for your current comments on the "robots" which you have used on occasion.

If anything that violates the sticky in reverse IMO.

Different players play in different eras and it's unfortunate that many treat a season (and possibility of dominance ect...) the same in 57,87 and 07.

I say this in terms of Bourque and Lidstrom in their 2nd half of their careers.

The clutch and grab era that Bourque winded down in is actually beneficial for Dman, especially dominant ones. The faster pace and rule changes was supposed to hurt Lidstrom and he actually thrived in it.

Also the 90's saw the total full integration of the NHL with new talent form other non traditional markets, it didn't include the entire 90's though and we can say that it does include the entire 00 decade.
The difference might be small but it's still there.
Dude...read what he said!
He was talking about dropping all these modern players like Niedermayer directly into the 1950's and saying how they would dominate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Nanuck of the North lol
I was going to use the full Cheech and Chong line but didn't

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:33 PM
  #197
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Also the 90's saw the total full integration of the NHL with new talent form other non traditional markets, it didn't include the entire 90's though and we can say that it does include the entire 00 decade.
The difference might be small but it's still there.
As well as expansion by nine teams to dilute the talent right back down to pre-1990 levels. Try again please.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:34 PM
  #198
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,117
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.
It's also ironic that one of your favorite Bourque arguments doesn't come up with Hasek's peak, ie team strength.

It's not an argument I buy but at least be consistent and point out that Roy's team were also way better defensively than Hasek's during their peak years.

Lidstrom's defensive peak and playoffs is greater than Bourque offensive advantage IMO.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 11-26-2012 at 11:48 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:34 PM
  #199
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Everything, and I mean everything, I have found about Langway indicates that his role in transforming the Caps was completely legitimate. Including contemporary media articles, voting results, statistical results, and eyewitness accounts from those who followed him at the time. Again, this kind of hindsight dismissal falls into the category of "it makes Lidstrom look less superior, let's find a way to revise it".
And I'll confirm that as someone who is FROM the Washington DC area and followed the Caps during that very time period.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:41 PM
  #200
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's also ironic that on of your favorite Bourque arguments doesn't come up with Hasek's peak, ie team strength.

It's not an argument I buy but at least be consistent and point out that Roy's team were also way better defensively than Hasek's during their peak years.
That's not true at all. Hasek's teams in Buffalo are grossly underrated and not all that different than what Roy had in Montreal.
Later on Hasek was playing for these very same high powered Wings and the best Sens team we have seen yet.
Hasek chose TWICE not to play in the playoffs, while at the other end of the spectrum, appendicitis couldn't even keep Roy out of more than one game.

The gap between Bourque's 21 seasons with the Bruins compared to Lidstrom's 20 seasons with the Wings is a HELL of a lot bigger than any gap Hasek's teams had to Roy's.

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 03:48 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.