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.

Was Lidstrom a generational talent?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2013, 09:34 PM
  #151
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 40,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
No problem.

By the way, my point wasn't actually a slap at Lidstrom. More of a slap at the idea that one player is solely responsible for shutting down another player or team.
Well, I think in the cases you cited, Lidstrom did do a lot on his own to shut down Lindros (Lindros was completely ineffective against him, a theme that would repeat itself with a lot of "power forwards") and Stevens did do a lot on his own to shut down just about every Red Wing forward he faced in the 1995 finals (still the most lopsided beating of the Wings I can recall in all my years being a fan). So perhaps not the best two examples to illustrate a general point on which you are largely correct.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
09-02-2013, 09:59 PM
  #152
robertguess2013
Registered User
 
robertguess2013's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: New Port Richey Fl
Country: United States
Posts: 7,236
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to robertguess2013 Send a message via MSN to robertguess2013 Send a message via Yahoo to robertguess2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
I'm not going through that entire wall of text because I don't have the time, but this is blatantly false and even a cursory glance at the Norris trophy voting would show that. For instance, what debate was there in 2007-08, one of the biggest landslide wins in NHL history?
I thought honestly that year green or streit had a shot. Honestly in 5 on 5 hockey that year in less minutes kronwell had 23 points to lidstroms 29 on 5 on 5 and ppg per 5 on 5 time kronwall was 0.431 to lidstroms 0.19. I think 5 on 5 should matter on NORRIS voting it obviously has no meaning yet neither does plus minus or blocked shots or steals etc..

We use all the numbers and he is not that far ahead of others. I get he got the votes lol but I dont think much of the norris personally. I guess now subban is a generational talent after last year? I get nick got 7. I thought was always a couple people as deserving as him or close to it except for like 2 years.



Is no way in 2011 Nick deserved that norris. No way not when he was ranked 69th of people with 750 minutes or 48th overall for guys with 1000 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey based on ppg.


So if get people to say NICK staying out of penalty box is enough to make him a generational talent I will give him a nod. If that matters more than blocked shots etc.. cool. He is the best ive ever seen at what he did. There is no debate there.


Now someone mentioned harvey and beliveau I would give them a nod if had seen play?

So to me is a very select list of generational guys and bourque is not there so cant put lidstrom. Is other debate there with potvin and robinson and even others. Was years thought coffey or chelios also should or could win norris over lidstrom among others.

robertguess2013 is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 08:38 AM
  #153
tony d
Giant Doctor
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 42,656
vCash: 500
Indeed so. One of the top 5 defenseman of all time plus 7 Norris Trophies which speak for themselves.

__________________
tony d is online now  
Old
09-03-2013, 08:53 AM
  #154
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 40,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertguess2013 View Post
I thought honestly that year green or streit had a shot. Honestly in 5 on 5 hockey that year in less minutes kronwell had 23 points to lidstroms 29 on 5 on 5 and ppg per 5 on 5 time kronwall was 0.431 to lidstroms 0.19. I think 5 on 5 should matter on NORRIS voting it obviously has no meaning yet neither does plus minus or blocked shots or steals etc.
This is some of the most superficial statistical analysis I've seen. Also, Green and Streit in 2007-08? If you are going to be a contrarian that's fine, but if you are going to present that kind of argument in a year where this was the Norris voting:

1. Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 1313 (127-5-1-1-0)
2. Dion Phaneuf, CGY 561 (2-38-37-26-12)
3. Zdeno Chara, BOS 486 (3-38-23-21-12)
4. Sergei Gonchar, PIT 370 (1-24-21-21-24)
5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24)
6. Andrei Markov, MTL 156 (0-4-15-11-20)
7. Mike Green, WSH 84 (0-1-7-10-12)
8. Chris Pronger, ANA 56 (0-2-5-5-2)
9. Brian Rafalski, DET 25 (0-1-1-2-7)
10. Scott Niedermayer, ANA 22 (0-2-1-1-0)
11. Duncan Keith, CHI 19 (0-0-2-0-9)
12. Brent Burns, MIN 14 (0-0-2-1-1)
13. Mark Streit, MTL 11 (0-1-0-1-1)

then you might want to offer up something that suggests why so few of the voters even remotely felt the same way.

I get that there are a few posters on here who think that they are always right even when they consistently go against the historical consensus, but that kind of attitude makes for really tiresome arguments because it's utterly impossible to convince such people they might be in error.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 09:16 AM
  #155
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,967
vCash: 500
I like the idea of putting players on a pyramid when determining all-time rankings (probably the one good idea Bill Simmonds ever had).

If we were to put defensemen on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Orr
Bourque - Harvey - Lidstrom - Shore
Potvin - Kelly - Fetisov - Robinson - Chelios


If we put all players on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Gretzky
Lemieux - Howe - Orr
Hull - Richard - Bourque - Beliveau - Morenz
Harvey - Mikita - Lidstrom - Shore - Kelly - Clarke - Potvin - Jagr - Shore


(goalies notwithstanding)

The order on each tier is irrelevant. It's possible to separate them from each other and put them in a straight ranking, but that doesn't seem entirely necessary when speaking to the question of which players were on a certain tier with one another.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 09:36 AM
  #156
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I like the idea of putting players on a pyramid when determining all-time rankings (probably the one good idea Bill Simmonds ever had).

If we were to put defensemen on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Orr
Bourque - Harvey - Lidstrom - Shore
Potvin - Kelly - Fetisov - Robinson - Chelios


If we put all players on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Gretzky
Lemieux - Howe - Orr
Hull - Richard - Bourque - Beliveau - Morenz
Harvey - Mikita - Lidstrom - Shore - Kelly - Clarke - Potvin - Jagr - Shore


(goalies notwithstanding)

The order on each tier is irrelevant. It's possible to separate them from each other and put them in a straight ranking, but that doesn't seem entirely necessary when speaking to the question of which players were on a certain tier with one another.
Great post! This is how I see it as well. Just weren´t as good explaining it in any of the "generational" threads.
And there´s even not much chance I would do to the pyramid. Probably put Bourque one down on the all players pyramid and Potvin one up on the defenceman pyramid.

feffan is online now  
Old
09-03-2013, 10:36 AM
  #157
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by feffan View Post
And there´s even not much chance I would do to the pyramid. Probably put Bourque one down on the all players pyramid and Potvin one up on the defenceman pyramid.
I actually thought about doing both of those things. The main reason I put Bourque up there was that it didn't seem right to have 8 forwards above the #2 defenseman. For a similar reason, I ended up deleting the goalies out of frustration with trying to rank them properly.

But yeah, I'd say Bourque and Potvin are the guys who could very easily bump up or down depending on how much emphasis a person places on longevity, team success, etc.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 10:49 AM
  #158
Gardner McKay
Moderator
R.I.P. Parabola
 
Gardner McKay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Porch of Indecision.
Country: United States
Posts: 12,467
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Yake View Post
top 5 defenseman of all time? absolutely

greatest defenseman of the past 20 years? yes

but generational? definitely not. his leadership skills are generational though but was he way better than guys like bourque and niedermayer during his career? i'd say he was better than those guys but not a level up

the only generational talents to me are orr, gretzky, and lemieux. those guys are a level ahead of everyone else
You also have to take into account the era in which those careers were played. Orr played in a different time.

Lidstrom IIRC was the first European to captain his team to a Stanley Cup. That says something. 7 Norris trophies and a Conn Smythe? Playing at an elite level his entire career? He won 3 straight Norris trophies at 36, 37 and 38 years old.

If you are one of the top 5 players to ever play that position then what else do you have to do to be considered a generational talent?

__________________
--But after the long calm, there are now beginnings of a stir. The reunion at hand may joy, it may bring fear. But let us embrace whatever it brings. For they are coming back. At last, the promise has been made. --
Gardner McKay is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 10:54 AM
  #159
Thesensation19*
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,573
vCash: 500
Idk how to describe properly, generational talent, but this is what I will say about Niklas Lidstrom.

The guy was a one of a kind elite hockey player who was the best of his generation on defense and his skills and his abilities would allow him to still be a great player in any generation of hockey already played and possible any future hockey as well.

That includes being a great two way gritty forward from the 50s to the 60s, a sensational player who would have turned heads in the 70s and annoyed people in the 80s. And he as we already know he was a a strong player in his youth during the 90s and dominated the game during the 21st century. Give him worse equipment, a skate that is falling apart, a wooden shorter stick. Whatever excuses you want. He would still be the perfect man.


Simple as that in my eyes. many will like to claim that the game has changed as if now the game was played on mars or something with different gravity and using armor instead. Hockey is and always will be a game played among players with sticks and a puck and the goal is to score more goals in the net than the other team.

Lidstrom would have been targeted by every team back in the day and in the future of the game, as if he was only a year, two years ago today.

Thesensation19* is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 11:02 AM
  #160
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I actually thought about doing both of those things. The main reason I put Bourque up there was that it didn't seem right to have 8 forwards above the #2 defenseman. For a similar reason, I ended up deleting the goalies out of frustration with trying to rank them properly.

But yeah, I'd say Bourque and Potvin are the guys who could very easily bump up or down depending on how much emphasis a person places on longevity, team success, etc.
I have argumented with myself about this very thing many times. I over all value great defense higher than most. Even so (as you say...) even the second best defenceman ever (Borque in my opionon) just barely cracks the top 10 when writing it down quickly... Oneself got to ask himself, did a Richard, Hull, Believau really effect the pace of a game more than a Borque, Lidström, Potvin...

For goalies, I would probably throw Hasek in with the second tier and Roy and Plante with the third tier. Brodeur, Sawchuk, Dryden and Hall belonging in the fourth. May have forgotten someone...

feffan is online now  
Old
09-03-2013, 11:58 AM
  #161
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 16,924
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I like the idea of putting players on a pyramid when determining all-time rankings (probably the one good idea Bill Simmonds ever had).

If we were to put defensemen on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Orr
Bourque - Harvey - Lidstrom - Shore
Potvin - Kelly - Fetisov - Robinson - Chelios


If we put all players on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Gretzky
Lemieux - Howe - Orr
Hull - Richard - Bourque - Beliveau - Morenz
Harvey - Mikita - Lidstrom - Shore - Kelly - Clarke - Potvin - Jagr - Shore


(goalies notwithstanding)

The order on each tier is irrelevant. It's possible to separate them from each other and put them in a straight ranking, but that doesn't seem entirely necessary when speaking to the question of which players were on a certain tier with one another.
I never realized before, but I do this too in my head. I agree, it's a great way of having your thoughts on order. Kind of like the same when you think about months, you see a clock face. (January is 1, February is 2, March is 3 etc.)

TAnnala is online now  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:05 PM
  #162
DRWCountryClub
Registered User
 
DRWCountryClub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robertguess2013 View Post
I thought honestly that year green or streit had a shot. Honestly in 5 on 5 hockey that year in less minutes kronwell had 23 points to lidstroms 29 on 5 on 5 and ppg per 5 on 5 time kronwall was 0.431 to lidstroms 0.19. I think 5 on 5 should matter on NORRIS voting it obviously has no meaning yet neither does plus minus or blocked shots or steals etc..

We use all the numbers and he is not that far ahead of others. I get he got the votes lol but I dont think much of the norris personally. I guess now subban is a generational talent after last year? I get nick got 7. I thought was always a couple people as deserving as him or close to it except for like 2 years.



Is no way in 2011 Nick deserved that norris. No way not when he was ranked 69th of people with 750 minutes or 48th overall for guys with 1000 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey based on ppg.


So if get people to say NICK staying out of penalty box is enough to make him a generational talent I will give him a nod. If that matters more than blocked shots etc.. cool. He is the best ive ever seen at what he did. There is no debate there.


Now someone mentioned harvey and beliveau I would give them a nod if had seen play?

So to me is a very select list of generational guys and bourque is not there so cant put lidstrom. Is other debate there with potvin and robinson and even others. Was years thought coffey or chelios also should or could win norris over lidstrom among others.
Trying to decipher these 'sentences' and 'paragraphs' to find a point.

Basically what I keep seeing over and over is that he thinks Lidstrom stayed out of the box a lot 'lol'.

I guess he doesn't realize Lidstrom was far and away the best defensive defenseman in the NHL as well as the best offensive year in and year out, for a good 16 seasons.

Like, he only won 4 Cups? That's not enough? Well Orr had 1.3ppg and Bourque this, and Robinson that. Do you not know anything about context? You can't just pick and choose stats and compare them when they are from different eras.

Bourque played the majority of his career in a high scoring era. Lidstrom not so much. He's the only player to hit 1000points(dman) who didn't play in the 80's.

Christ, 30% of the seasons he played in he went to the Stanley Cup Final. 40% of the time he played in at least the WCF. In a league with 24-30 teams, that's an amazing accomplishment. But not, he didn't win 11 Cups.

DRWCountryClub is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:07 PM
  #163
DRWCountryClub
Registered User
 
DRWCountryClub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,970
vCash: 500
Lidstrom was on another level compared to sure-fire HoFers like Neidermayer and Pronger(although Pronger's peak was comparable).

To say Neidermayer is even close is simply wrong.

DRWCountryClub is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:13 PM
  #164
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
Trying to decipher these 'sentences' and 'paragraphs' to find a point.

Basically what I keep seeing over and over is that he thinks Lidstrom stayed out of the box a lot 'lol'.

I guess he doesn't realize Lidstrom was far and away the best defensive defenseman in the NHL as well as the best offensive year in and year out, for a good 16 seasons.

Like, he only won 4 Cups? That's not enough? Well Orr had 1.3ppg and Bourque this, and Robinson that. Do you not know anything about context? You can't just pick and choose stats and compare them when they are from different eras.

Bourque played the majority of his career in a high scoring era. Lidstrom not so much. He's the only player to hit 1000points(dman) who didn't play in the 80's.

Christ, 30% of the seasons he played in he went to the Stanley Cup Final. 40% of the time he played in at least the WCF. In a league with 24-30 teams, that's an amazing accomplishment. But not, he didn't win 11 Cups.
Context cuts both ways. He was on the strongest of the dynasty teams post-95 lockout. You can't attribute his high offensive (mostly PP) stats and his success in the postseason to just Lidstrom.


_______________

Regardless, the answer to this thread is simple.

If you consider generational as a transcendent player who utterly dominated the game, then really only the big four are generational.

If you think it's more like top 5 for a position, or top 20 overall, etc. for arbitrary milestones. Then yes, Lidstrom is generational.

Wrath is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:28 PM
  #165
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
I guess he doesn't realize Lidstrom was far and away the best defensive defenseman in the NHL as well as the best offensive year in and year out, for a good 16 seasons.
Was he "far and away" better than Ray Bourque when their primes overlapped? I would say no.

Was he "far and away" better than Scott Stevens when their primes overlapped? Again I would say no.

Was he "far and away" better than a healthy Chris Chelios? No again.

So how was "far and away" the best year in and year out?

Look, Lidstrom was an excellent player for a long time and all respect in the world to him for it.....but I'm sorry, he never had anywhere near the level of clear dominance over his peers that Orr did.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
Like, he only won 4 Cups? That's not enough?
Lidstrom didn't win those Cups: The Detroit Red Wings won them. Until one player single handedly wins a championship it's rather silly to credit an individual player whith what is undoubtedly a TEAM accomplishment.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:29 PM
  #166
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
This is some of the most superficial statistical analysis I've seen. Also, Green and Streit in 2007-08? If you are going to be a contrarian that's fine, but if you are going to present that kind of argument in a year where this was the Norris voting:

1. Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 1313 (127-5-1-1-0)
2. Dion Phaneuf, CGY 561 (2-38-37-26-12)
3. Zdeno Chara, BOS 486 (3-38-23-21-12)
4. Sergei Gonchar, PIT 370 (1-24-21-21-24)
5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24)
6. Andrei Markov, MTL 156 (0-4-15-11-20)
7. Mike Green, WSH 84 (0-1-7-10-12)
8. Chris Pronger, ANA 56 (0-2-5-5-2)
9. Brian Rafalski, DET 25 (0-1-1-2-7)
10. Scott Niedermayer, ANA 22 (0-2-1-1-0)
11. Duncan Keith, CHI 19 (0-0-2-0-9)
12. Brent Burns, MIN 14 (0-0-2-1-1)
13. Mark Streit, MTL 11 (0-1-0-1-1)

then you might want to offer up something that suggests why so few of the voters even remotely felt the same way.

I get that there are a few posters on here who think that they are always right even when they consistently go against the historical consensus, but that kind of attitude makes for really tiresome arguments because it's utterly impossible to convince such people they might be in error.
He must be getting 2007-08 confused with 2008-09. 2008-09 is when Mike Green (wrongly IMO) came extremely close to winning the Norris, based on scoring 30 goals, and when Mark Streit received a very high number of votes for a defenseman who missed the playoffs, leading the Islanders in both scoring and ice time by a huge margin.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:30 PM
  #167
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I like the idea of putting players on a pyramid when determining all-time rankings (probably the one good idea Bill Simmonds ever had).

If we were to put defensemen on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Orr
Bourque - Harvey - Lidstrom - Shore
Potvin - Kelly - Fetisov - Robinson - Chelios


If we put all players on a pyramid, mine would look something like this:

Gretzky
Lemieux - Howe - Orr
Hull - Richard - Bourque - Beliveau - Morenz
Harvey - Mikita - Lidstrom - Shore - Kelly - Clarke - Potvin - Jagr - Shore


(goalies notwithstanding)

The order on each tier is irrelevant. It's possible to separate them from each other and put them in a straight ranking, but that doesn't seem entirely necessary when speaking to the question of which players were on a certain tier with one another.
Oh tarheel... you just love putting Bourque above Harvey.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 03:57 PM
  #168
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 15,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Was he "far and away" better than Ray Bourque when their primes overlapped? I would say no.

Was he "far and away" better than Scott Stevens when their primes overlapped? Again I would say no.

Was he "far and away" better than a healthy Chris Chelios? No again.

So how was "far and away" the best year in and year out?
I would say yes to the bolded. People forget the vast number of stupid, unnecessary minor penalties Chelios used to take before he got old. On top of that, I don't personally think he was ever as effective on either side of the puck as Lidstrom was for his entire prime.

But your basic point that there was not a tremendous difference between Lidstrom and the best of his peers (an Orr-like difference) is, imo, pretty solid. When Pronger was on his game and healthy I still think he was the best defenseman of the era.

Difference between the two is Lidstrom was on and healthy for 16 some years. Pronger only really put 4 or 5 years like that together. (Edit: and yes, I know Pronger, like Chelios, took a lot of stupid penalties. I also saw a lot of hockey from him on a level that I never saw from Chelios).

billybudd is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 04:04 PM
  #169
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
I would say yes to the bolded. People forget the vast number of stupid, unnecessary minor penalties Chelios used to take before he got old. On top of that, I don't personally think he was ever as effective on either side of the puck as Lidstrom was for his entire prime.

But your basic point that there was not a tremendous difference between Lidstrom and the best of his peers (an Orr-like difference) is, imo, pretty solid. When Pronger was on his game and healthy I still think he was the best defenseman of the era.

Difference between the two is Lidstrom was on and healthy for 16 some years. Pronger only really put 4 or 5 years like that together. (Edit: and yes, I know Pronger, like Chelios, took a lot of stupid penalties. I also saw a lot of hockey from him on a level that I never saw from Chelios).
I'm not one who holds PIM against a player normally. Call me "old school" but I've always held intimidating an opponent was worth a few penalties called on you

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 04:44 PM
  #170
DRWCountryClub
Registered User
 
DRWCountryClub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Was he "far and away" better than Ray Bourque when their primes overlapped? I would say no.

Was he "far and away" better than Scott Stevens when their primes overlapped? Again I would say no.

Was he "far and away" better than a healthy Chris Chelios? No again.

So how was "far and away" the best year in and year out?

Look, Lidstrom was an excellent player for a long time and all respect in the world to him for it.....but I'm sorry, he never had anywhere near the level of clear dominance over his peers that Orr did.




Lidstrom didn't win those Cups: The Detroit Red Wings won them. Until one player single handedly wins a championship it's rather silly to credit an individual player whith what is undoubtedly a TEAM accomplishment.
I didn't bring up the Cup argument, it was a response to the guy saying, "Well he didn't win 8-11, so...".

Bourque he's close with, obviously, who is also a top 5 defenseman.

Yes, defensively he was better than Stevens and Chelios when their careers overlapped, minus Lidstrom's first few seasons when the other two were already veterans.

Prime for prime Lidstrom's better than both, career, peak, everything. Far and away better. He was far and away better than Neidermayer, too, and better than Pronger overall. When you are clearly better than a guy who is a 4 time Cup winner, won at every level, Conn Smythe as well, I think it's safe to say he dominated his peers handily.

Now, I'm not saying he's Orr, don't get your panties in a bunch, nor am I saying he dominated his peers at that level, but there was really no contest when Lidstrom was in his prime. For a one off, some people may have taken Pronger, but his peak was incredibly high as well. Anyway, the argument has nothing to do with Orr anywway, it's whether we consider Lidstrom a generational player, and when people are comparing him to Larry Murphy and the like, I'm going to argue against that.

As for the Cup argument, of course it's a team accomplishment. Thanks. Didn't know that. One interesting tidbit though, is that Lidstrom won four Cups over 12 years and went to the Final over 14 years. It's not as if he was playing with Yzerman, Datsyuk, Fedorov, Shanahan, Zetterberg, Chelios, Rafalski, etc all in their prime all at the same time. He was the one constant on the roster and the team kept winning despite losing HoFers and replacing them with not as good players.

DRWCountryClub is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 04:46 PM
  #171
DRWCountryClub
Registered User
 
DRWCountryClub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
I would say yes to the bolded. People forget the vast number of stupid, unnecessary minor penalties Chelios used to take before he got old. On top of that, I don't personally think he was ever as effective on either side of the puck as Lidstrom was for his entire prime.

But your basic point that there was not a tremendous difference between Lidstrom and the best of his peers (an Orr-like difference) is, imo, pretty solid. When Pronger was on his game and healthy I still think he was the best defenseman of the era.

Difference between the two is Lidstrom was on and healthy for 16 some years. Pronger only really put 4 or 5 years like that together. (Edit: and yes, I know Pronger, like Chelios, took a lot of stupid penalties. I also saw a lot of hockey from him on a level that I never saw from Chelios).
The problem with Pronger is that he couldn't play at that level season in and season out.

DRWCountryClub is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 04:51 PM
  #172
DRWCountryClub
Registered User
 
DRWCountryClub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,970
vCash: 500
From players 1980 on, other than Bourque, who would you take as a number one defenseman?

How much do you really have to think about this question?

DRWCountryClub is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 04:56 PM
  #173
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Oh tarheel... you just love putting Bourque above Harvey.
In fairness, that opinion was formed in the crucible of this very board.

I feel like the 2-6 spots for all time defensemen are just very hard to get a handle on. I feel like Lidstrom/Harvey and Potvin/Shore are at least parallel comparisons. But cross-comparing them is just really problematic. The only player I see who seems to compare favorably to any one of them is Bourque. I was a lot more timid to make that assertion a few years ago, but after seeing the various arguments presented here in detail, I'm starting to harden into a much more concrete position.

tarheelhockey is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 05:04 PM
  #174
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,415
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
Yes, defensively he was better than Stevens and Chelios when their careers overlapped, minus Lidstrom's first few seasons when the other two were already veterans.

Prime for prime Lidstrom's better than both, career, peak, everything. Far and away better. He was far and away better than Neidermayer, too, and better than Pronger overall. When you are clearly better than a guy who is a 4 time Cup winner, won at every level, Conn Smythe as well, I think it's safe to say he dominated his peers handily.
You can gratuitously assert that, I can equally gratuitously deny it. I watched both Stevens and Lidstrom's entire careers and at no point was Lidstrom EVER far and away better than Steven's defensively.

Same thing with Chelios and Pronger. And who brought Neidermayer up? Not I.....that was YOUR strawman.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
Now, I'm not saying he's Orr
Orr is the gold standard for generational defensemen so if you're claiming Lidstrom is generational than you're putting him into a category with Orr.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
don't get your panties in a bunch
I'll thank you not to be insulting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
As for the Cup argument, of course it's a team accomplishment. Thanks. Didn't know that. One interesting tidbit though, is that Lidstrom won four Cups over 12 years and went to the Final over 14 years. It's not as if he was playing with Yzerman, Datsyuk, Fedorov, Shanahan, Zetterberg, Chelios, Rafalski, etc all in their prime all at the same time. He was the one constant on the roster and the team kept winning despite losing HoFers and replacing them with not as good players.
So, if you understand that Cups are team accomplishment as indicated by the first part of the that paragraph why do you then turn around and try to use it an individual accolade for Lidstrom in the second part of that paragraph?

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
09-03-2013, 05:17 PM
  #175
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forty View Post
From players 1980 on, other than Bourque, who would you take as a number one defenseman?

How much do you really have to think about this question?
Maybe Scott Stevens and maybe Chris Chelios (I really couldn't guess how effective Lidstrom would have been in the '80s), but the list certainly isn't long. Niedermayer might be the closest to the "same" player that springs off the top of the mind, but I feel his skating wouldn't make up for everything else that goes into Lidstrom's greatness. Bourque still tops the list for me, though (assuming Orr #1, of course).

Someone might also point out that you still get some pretty good years of Robinson and Potvin, if you we're going back as far as the '80s.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Closed Thread

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 03:40 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.