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, 10:50 PM
  #201
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,004
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.
I would like to know how Lidstrom was definitively better in the playoffs than Bourque. Most of what I've seen is a function of playing for a superior team.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:54 PM
  #202
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Lidstrom was not CLEARLY better than Stevens defensively!
Hockey Reference has them really close with Bourque slightly better.

But of course there are some problems with the way HR does their point shares but it's a baseline.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 10:59 PM
  #203
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You realize that is pretty much as big of a gap as possible with Lidstrom being favored by less than 9% of the voters.
Yes I do realize that full Pronger Hart mania was in full swing that year.

The actual real world difference is less than that iMO but I understand what the voters did.

If you were doing a ratio to compare Pronger/Lidstrom that year would it be closer to the 91-9 or the 565/400 one?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:03 PM
  #204
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
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.
Okay we will agree to disagree on this one as I have been over it before.

Lidstrom 3:30 MPG more ice time is a pretty clear indicator and that difference isn't made up of only PP time either.

We could post a poll on it but then again it would be people's opinions, although I would be surprised if it was less than 65/35% for Lidstrom.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:17 PM
  #205
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
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
Like I said in another post there was a real push to recognize the best defensive Dman in the league at that time as people were tired of the Norris going to the top scoring Dman.

Carlyle and Wilson winning it the years before Langway helped fuel this discussion as well.

Let's face reality as well, I'm sure some voters saw a passing of the guard from Robinson to Langway as defensively and presence wise they looked familiar and both played with the Habs.

This notion was wrong IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
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.
Yes Murphy was a good edition as Stevens took on a much bigger role in 84.

My original point still stands, the Caps got 4 regular pieces for 2 and added Stevens as well as youngsters like Gaetan Duchesne, Carpenter and BEG taking on larger roles.

look, Langway was an important addition but it's not like he got traded 1-1 and guys like stevens, duchesne, carpetner, BEG weren't getter better.

It also was no longer Maruks team which was a good thing in the long run.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:34 PM
  #206
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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.
As was pointed out Federov was carrying the bigger load and all 3 guys played on the same line for substantial portions of that playoff.

Quote:
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.
so you are saying that msot of teh extra time that nick got was on the PP but that Chris got 1/3 the PP time he did. Then obviously the extra 5 MPG wasn't just PP time and including much more ES time as well.

Yes Chelios had 2 more assists than Lidstrom did, my guess is that he directly fed a Detroit forward on a breakaway for a goal while Lidstrom was just shooting away on the PP right?

Maybe someone has the numbers and TOI and scoring plays that will shed more light on this since you seem quite entrenched here.

Or maybe the voters got the Conn Smythe wrong? I doubt it.

Quote:
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!
I'm not downplaying his leadership, typical strawman you are putting up here once again.

Nowhere in the post you are responding to did I mention leadership.

I'm simply stating on who the best player on that 02 cup run was and IMO Lidstrom clearly was and Federov too but not as greatly.

Clearly all 3 players were important leaders on that team along with others.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-26-2012, 11:56 PM
  #207
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
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.
Those numbers both refelct teh back hlf of both players careers.


Quote:
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.
Leetch wasn't the same player after his injury overall, still had some offensive talent but lost his defensive skills fast. Played 36 games only in 93.

Chelios played 53 games in 90

Al played in 50 games in 93 and 32/48 in 95

Stevens was short changed after becoming less offensive.

The 7th guy is Nick Lidstrom, wasn't around for the 1st 2 seasons of the comp.

Quote:
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.
Post 139 from you

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.

You were right Lidstrom didn't come close to Bourque total he was quite a bit higher.

You are making a bigger deal about the competition than it is really. It's not like 90's is bobby Orr and 00's is Phil Housley.

Then again 674-467 would make up for it don't you think, even with the missed games by those I listed?

Personally I don't put a huge amount of stock in those Norris voting shares other than a baseline, it doesn't show the year by year voting and conditions either.

In other words it's only part of the puzzle and the answer.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:02 AM
  #208
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I would like to know how Lidstrom was definitively better in the playoffs than Bourque. Most of what I've seen is a function of playing for a superior team.
Someone else might have more definitive numbers and information but his plus/minus in the playoffs over his career in Detroit is quite impressive, considering he is getting top defensive duties for almost all of it.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play..._by=plus_minus

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:21 AM
  #209
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Someone else might have more definitive numbers and information but his plus/minus in the playoffs over his career in Detroit is quite impressive, considering he is getting top defensive duties for almost all of it.
From what I can tell, it doesn't really seem that impressive. Over his playoff career, his team had roughly the same plus-minus with him on the ice at ES as off. He might have an on/off above 1.0, if he is on the ice less than half the time at ES. Don't have detailed team data for playoffs, but it seems he was much less impressive in comparison to his team than in regular season.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-27-2012 at 12:53 AM. Reason: Oops, restored your original post
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:37 AM
  #210
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Lidstrom 3:30 MPG more ice time is a pretty clear indicator and that difference isn't made up of only PP time either.
Lidstrom played 3:16 more PP time per game than Chelios. I've literally made this same post less than two months ago.

Seriously though, this sort of thing is all readily accessible on NHL.com. Why don't you look it up instead of just hoping it'll slip through the cracks? I go into these discussions in good faith, and I suggest you start to do the same.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:45 AM
  #211
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Okay we will agree to disagree on this one as I have been over it before.

Lidstrom 3:30 MPG more ice time is a pretty clear indicator and that difference isn't made up of only PP time either.
You really should look at this stuff before posting man...
2002 TOI
Lidstrom Total-28:48/G SH-5:11/G PP-5:09/G
Chelios Total-25:18/G SH-5:00/G PP-1:53/G

Lidstrom had 3:30mins more per game than Chelios, of that, 3:16mins is PP time.
Next!


(Beaten to it by quoipourquoi )


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-27-2012 at 01:15 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 12:55 AM
  #212
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
From what I can tell, it doesn't really seem that impressive. Over his playoff career, his team had roughly the same plus-minus with him on the ice at ES as off. He might have an on/off above 1.0, if he is on the ice less than half the time at ES. Don't have detailed team data for playoffs, but it seems he was much less impressive in comparison to his team than in regular season.
My guess is that Detroit's line matching would have been much stricter in the playoffs than in the regular season. I know that Bowman did everything possible to get Lidstrom out against the toughest opposition in the playoffs in 2002. And not like long ago, it was shown on this site that Lidstrom and Chelios bascially saw equal amounts of tough competiton during the preceding regular season

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:00 AM
  #213
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 17,676
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Norrises in the 1990s
Ray Bourque - 3 (2nd x3, 3rd x2)
Chris Chelios - 2 (2nd x1, 3rd x1
Brian Leetch - 2 (3rd x1)
Rob Blake - 1
Paul Coffey - 1
Al MacInnis - 1 (2nd x3)

All-Star Teams
Ray Bourque - 1st x6, 2nd x2
Chris Chelios - 1st x3, 2nd x2
Al MacInnis - 1st x3, 2nd x2
Brian Leetch - 1st x2, 2nd x3
Nicklas Lidstrom - 1st x2
Scott Stevens - 1st x1, 2nd x2

Hart Finishes
Ray Bourque - 2nd, 5th, 6th, 11th, 13th
Paul Coffey - 4th
Chris Chelios - 7th, 10th
Scott Stevens - 7th, 12th
Al MacInnis - 9th, 10th
Rob Blake - 10th
Brian Leetch - 11th, 16th, 23rd
Nick Lidstrom - 14th
Chris Pronger - 16th


It's not an exaggeration. Bourque was easily the best of the 1990s, practically lapping the field. He has everyone on both peak and longevity and not by small margins.



And in light of the illustration you see above, which shows an aging Bourque in an integrated league, it's safe to say we can put your theory to bed. He was, very obviously, the best defenseman in the world regardless of integration.
Why do you guys put so much weight into these selections when they are all done subjectively by impressionable voters? I'd prefer to know more about the quality of the competition for these spots, than ____ got this many nominations for ____

not even disagreeing with your position but the same logic your using now, just listing all star teams/norris is the logic people will use a generation from now to say Lidstrom is almost as good as Orr(HE HAZ ALL THE NORRISEZZ) without any context as to why he won them

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 01:05 AM
  #214
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Those numbers both refelct teh back half of both players careers.
That's complete ******** and you know it!
Bourque was on his major down turn after '96 and didn't have a resurgence until '01 playing for a Cup with the AV's which isn't even included in the 90's numbers.
Lidstrom didn't start his down turn until '10, the year after the 2000 numbers end.



Quote:
Leetch wasn't the same player after his injury overall, still had some offensive talent but lost his defensive skills fast. Played 36 games only in 93.

Chelios played 53 games in 90

Al played in 50 games in 93 and 32/48 in 95

Stevens was short changed after becoming less offensive.

The 7th guy is Nick Lidstrom, wasn't around for the 1st 2 seasons of the comp.
Yeah, now be fair about it and do the same for Lidstrom's competition from that list eh.
A wildly inconsistent, oft injured and/or suspended Pronger?
Niedermayer who was only a Norris contender for 3 years in the 2000's?
Blake who fell off the map after '06 and didn't have a single Norris vote after '04?
Chelios who was done after '02?
MacInnis who basically retired after '03?
Chara is about the steadiest competition Lidstrom had and even he only received Norris consideration 5 times in the 9 seasons listed.


Honestly, gimme a break!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-27-2012 at 01:16 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:02 AM
  #215
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Lidstrom played 3:16 more PP time per game than Chelios. I've literally made this same post less than two months ago.

Seriously though, this sort of thing is all readily accessible on NHL.com. Why don't you look it up instead of just hoping it'll slip through the cracks? I go into these discussions in good faith, and I suggest you start to do the same.
I was using HR which had Lidstrom at 28:49 to Chelios at 25:18 which is 3:31 but if you say it all PP time great it's almost like a rest right?

Okay found it Lidstrom still plays more in every situation. Thanks for the link.

If you seriously think that a 40 year old Chelios was more valuable to the red wings than a 31 year old Lidstrom fine, we will agree to disagree.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:17 AM
  #216
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's complete ******** and you know it!
Bourque was on his major down turn after '96 and didn't have a resurgence until '01 playing for a Cup with the AV's which isn't even included in the 90's numbers.
Lidstrom didn't start his down turn until '10, the year after the 2000 numbers end.
you are talking about something subjective, primes or something, I'm talking about a ten year block where Bourque was 29-38 and Lidstrom was 29-38 and teh comp was those decades 90's and 00's.

Are you not clear that both time periods were in the back half of their careers?





Yeah, now be fair about it and do the same for Lidstrom's competition from that list eh.
A wildly inconsistent, oft injured and/or suspended Pronger?
Niedermayer who was only a Norris contender for 3 years in the 2000's?
Blake who fell off the map after '06 and didn't have a single Norris vote after '04?
Chelios who was done after '02?
MacInnis who basically retired after '03?
Chara is about the steadiest competition Lidstrom had and even he only received Norris consideration 5 times in the 9 seasons listed.


Honestly, gimme a break![/QUOTE]

You either missed or glossed over the part at teh end of that post where the info wasn't the be all and end all, you were the one that asked for the comp and thought that it wouldn't be close, now the moving of the goalposts.

The competition was different every year for both guys yes and if we do a breakdown the competition looks better historically in the 90's yes but does it really make up the huge difference in overall shares or were you too surprised to compute Lidstrom's advantage there?

The thread is starting to get redundant once again, the information really isn't worth looking at if one has already formulated a stone lock conclusion on the answer.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:26 AM
  #217
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Some are doing serious history revisionism. No Red Wings fan would say, that in 2002 Chelios was more valuable or better player. Chelios had an awesome season, but it's fairly obvious who was the best dman on that team.

As for Yzerman in 2002. As the playoffs went on he became less and less effective. He was an inspiration to that team, but Fedorov covered a lot for Yzerman. There is reason that those two spent a lot of time on the same line, Yzerman just couldn't play two-way game on one leg. And no... Lidstrom was clearly better during that run. So was Fedorov and possibly Hasek.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 03:55 AM
  #218
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
you are talking about something subjective, primes or something, I'm talking about a ten year block where Bourque was 29-38 and Lidstrom was 29-38 and teh comp was those decades 90's and 00's.

Are you not clear that both time periods were in the back half of their careers?
Except by 89/90, Bourque is already in his 11th season and by 98/99, his 20th season.
Lidstrom by comparison is only in his 9th and by 08/09 only his 17th.

It's not the back half of Lidstrom's career like it was the back half of Bourque's and you damned well know it!


Quote:
You either missed or glossed over the part at teh end of that post where the info wasn't the be all and end all, you were the one that asked for the comp and thought that it wouldn't be close, now the moving of the goalposts.

The competition was different every year for both guys yes and if we do a breakdown the competition looks better historically in the 90's yes but does it really make up the huge difference in overall shares or were you too surprised to compute Lidstrom's advantage there?

The thread is starting to get redundant once again, the information really isn't worth looking at if one has already formulated a stone lock conclusion on the answer.
No, I knew going in that Lidstrom's competition was weak and extremely inconsistent. I just didn't realise how truly weak and inconsistent it really was.

Redundant? Another understatement.
Not a single new argument here for Lidstrom over Bourque that hasn't been shot down hardcore in multiple threads previously. Lidstrom fanboi's are getting so desperate now that your arguments are becoming little more than cherry picking exercises, ludicrous statements devoid of fact and quite frankly, dishonest in general.

Lidstrom is top 4-6 all-time and that's as far as it goes. I'm sorry but that's life and no amount of "screaming" the same old arguments over and over in an attempt to drown out the facts is going to cut it.

Like seriously, what is this, your 5th or 6th time now trying to re-run the same race you keep finishing last in?
And moving the goal posts...that's rich, do you know how many times you have been caught blatantly doing just that in this thread so far? I wasn't even the one pointing it out, I didn't even have to.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 04:11 AM
  #219
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
Some are doing serious history revisionism. No Red Wings fan would say, that in 2002 Chelios was more valuable or better player. Chelios had an awesome season, but it's fairly obvious who was the best dman on that team.
I don't disagree. I think Lidstrom was clearly the better D-man but here's the thing...we only know that because of what we saw. Going strictly by the stats, they tell a different story, a much closer albeit false one.

Now tell me, why is it so easy to determine that the stats are not telling the full story for Lidstrom but as soon as it's about Bourque, the same allowance is not being made?
Just like how I saw why Lidstrom was better than Chelios in '02, it's the same how I saw why Bourque was up for and should have won the Hart in '90.
Why is spouting the stats for Chelios over Lidstrom in '02 so wrong and easily dismissed yet spouting the stats against Bourque's Hart performance in '90 so acceptable?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 05:42 AM
  #220
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I don't disagree. I think Lidstrom was clearly the better D-man but here's the thing...we only know that because of what we saw. Going strictly by the stats, they tell a different story, a much closer albeit false one.

Now tell me, why is it so easy to determine that the stats are not telling the full story for Lidstrom but as soon as it's about Bourque, the same allowance is not being made?
Just like how I saw why Lidstrom was better than Chelios in '02, it's the same how I saw why Bourque was up for and should have won the Hart in '90.
Why is spouting the stats for Chelios over Lidstrom in '02 so wrong and easily dismissed yet spouting the stats against Bourque's Hart performance in '90 so acceptable?
So why to beat Lidstrom down to prove how great Bourque was? I agree that Ray Bourque was a better player and is rightfully ranked higher. But if one wants to argue why Bourque was better, then he should make a case for Ray. Not make some dubious cases against Lidstrom. Lidstrom had his flaws, but constantly drumming about Hart votes and Chelios in 2002 are simply weak arguments.

Frankly, do we have to argue Lidstrom vs Bourque every six months? Maybe it's better to argue why Shore is ranked over Lidstrom. Or Harvey over Bourque.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 06:22 AM
  #221
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
So why to beat Lidstrom down to prove how great Bourque was? I agree that Ray Bourque was a better player and is rightfully ranked higher. But if one wants to argue why Bourque was better, then he should make a case for Ray. Not make some dubious cases against Lidstrom. Lidstrom had his flaws, but constantly drumming about Hart votes and Chelios in 2002 are simply weak arguments.
I wasn't making a case for Chelios, not for the '02 Norris anyway and the only time I "beat" Lidstrom down is when someone attempts to put him above Bourque, Harvey or Orr.
If one makes such a claim, they better be expecting some harsh realities to be pointed out. Lidstrom's not going up against Pronger or Niedermayer or Chara at that point, he's going up against the big boys now.

Quote:
Frankly, do we have to argue Lidstrom vs Bourque every six months? Maybe it's better to argue why Shore is ranked over Lidstrom. Or Harvey over Bourque.
Six months? Every 6 days seems more like it
And I dunno if you're somewhat new or not but there's a very vocal minority absolutely obsessed with Lidstrom being ranked higher than 4-6th.
No matter how many times their arguments are countered or stamped out outright, weeks or months later, it starts all over again and they take it quite personally which in turn causes many of the posters debating with them to also take things personally.
It's a viscous circle.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-27-2012 at 06:31 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 08:53 AM
  #222
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OccupySheen View Post
Why do you guys put so much weight into these selections when they are all done subjectively by impressionable voters? I'd prefer to know more about the quality of the competition for these spots, than ____ got this many nominations for ____

not even disagreeing with your position but the same logic your using now, just listing all star teams/norris is the logic people will use a generation from now to say Lidstrom is almost as good as Orr(HE HAZ ALL THE NORRISEZZ) without any context as to why he won them
I think a simple trophy count was adequate to answer the question at hand -- who was the most dominant defenseman of the 1990s? Bourque has just short of twice the accolades collected by his nearest peer. That's about as open-and-shut as it gets.

Similarly, if someone wants to argue that Lidstrom wasn't far and away the best defenseman of the 2000s, a simple Norris count will do just fine. It's not like it's close.

Now, if someone wants to extrapolate the trophy counts to compare players across different eras, then it's time to back up up and really look at depth of competition, etc.

Edit: to be fair to your point -- it would definitely be better for the sake of argument if we dug deeper into the results. It just happened that the question at hand was easily answered without that level of effort.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 09:57 AM
  #223
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I would like to know how Lidstrom was definitively better in the playoffs than Bourque. Most of what I've seen is a function of playing for a superior team.
Bourque's playoff production drops about 16% from his regular season production while Lidstrom's drops only 4%. Accounting for eras, Lidstrom produces at essentially the same rate as Bourque in the playoffs, in more games, and in deeper runs. If you can accept Lidstrom was better defensively it is pretty cut and dry, even without mentioning 4 Cups and a Conn Smythe versus 1 Cup.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:22 AM
  #224
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,943
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Bourque's playoff production drops about 16% from his regular season production while Lidstrom's drops only 4%. Accounting for eras, Lidstrom produces at essentially the same rate as Bourque in the playoffs, in more games, and in deeper runs. If you can accept Lidstrom was better defensively it is pretty cut and dry, even without mentioning 4 Cups and a Conn Smythe versus 1 Cup.
Covered already.
Just cut and pasting because I am bored of typing the same thing over and over.

It is hard to put into words just how different the team was with Bourque on and off the ice. We once glanced at the 1990 Oilers/Bruins finals when someone attempted to say Bourque choked in the finals in one of these arguments, and the numbers were ridiculously good for him compared to the rest of his team.

Yes he was -1 in the series, but it was a team best, and ridiculous considering he was playing 30+ minutes a game in a series where they were outscored 20-8. Throw in the fact that he had a team best 3 goals, 2 assists and made the brilliant pass that resulted in another goal but did not get an assist in their game 3. He factored in to 6 of the Bruins 8 goals in the series.

The rest of the team was getting demolished when he was not on the ice that series. Even more amazing was the Oilers were playing a specific strategy in which Bourque was keyed in on as target #1 and not given the chance to jump in the play. The idea was, Bourque is the only bruin who can really carry the puck, don't let him. Dump it in his corner so he has to retrieve and then rush and bang him. Force him to make outlet passes to players who cannot do much with them, and then backcheck on Bourque as if he were a forward to prevent him from getting into the play. Heck, they did not even worry about covering Neely, choosing instead to latch Tikkanen on Janney%


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 11-27-2012 at 10:37 AM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2012, 10:53 AM
  #225
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,943
vCash: 72
If Bourque were on the red wings, that strategy would not have worked whatsoever since he would have an abundance of players who actually can carry the puck to make those perfect outlet passes to and whom the other team would have to worry about. The other difference being when off the ice, the rest of the wings team was pretty respectable due to their depth. The bruins were just creamed when Bourque was not on the ice. Lidstrom was not keyed in on as the main offensive threat by the other team, thus, his numbers did not suffer as much.

As it was, despite Bourque being every bit as good in transition game passing, they did not have to worry about who Bourque was passing the puck to creating much offense, thus, they were able to focus on him. Not the case with Lidstrom.

We saw a large example of what Bourque could do on a comparable Avs team with guys he could pass the puck to. Sakic had a career year and cited Bourque as a huge reason. The Avs enjoyed huge success, with the greatest season that team ever had to date, winning the presidents trophy. Shot against on the team, which was previously averaging 29 a game dropped to 22 against per game and every player on the team noticeably grew in confidence and poise, which most claimed rubbed off on them from Ray.

Dark Shadows 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 07:58 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.