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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Norris trophy shares

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-04-2010, 06:32 PM
  #51
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How is that different than today, though?

I see no reason why a lower percentage of Canada's best athletes would want to play hockey in the 60s than today.
Because today there is no USSR and scouting the european leagues is done with accuracy. Ofcourse players can still refuse playing in the NHL and it happens but its not like it were in the 60s where many players were simply not able to play in the league.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:40 PM
  #52
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Because today there is no USSR and scouting the european leagues is done with accuracy. Ofcourse players can still refuse playing in the NHL and it happens but its not like it were in the 60s where many players were simply not able to play in the league.
Oh yes, the talent pool effectively doubled with the Europeans and Americans (post Miracle on Ice) entering the league. But that happened a bit in the 80s, but mostly in the early 90s. It has nothing to do with the 1967 expansion or the number of teams in the league.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:50 PM
  #53
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Oh yes, the talent pool effectively doubled with the Europeans and Americans (post Miracle on Ice) entering the league. But that happened a bit in the 80s, but mostly in the early 90s. It has nothing to do with the 1967 expansion or the number of teams in the league.
I was just responding to this.

Quote:
but do you really think a top 5 forward or defenseman in the world would have been missed?

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-04-2010, 06:56 PM
  #54
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I was just responding to this.
The response to that is that until the 70s, all the best players in the world were in North America. The Soviets in the late 50s/early 60s were slightly better than the teams of amateurs that the Canadians sent over to the Olympics. It wasn't until the late 60s/early 70s that the Soviets started to emerge as a threat to Canada's dominate of hockey at the highest level.

(Personally I think that Canada was still clearly better in 72 - it was as much a case of the Soviets ambushing Canada by being a lot better than everyone thought. I think by the late 70s/early 80s, the top end talent of the Soviets was pretty much equal to Canada minus Gretzky and Orr. Either way, Soviet hockey in the 60s was nothing close to Canada).

Sorry everyone, this is getting really off-topic.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-05-2010, 10:55 PM
  #55
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Because comparing the probability of being on the best team in the world as opposed to being the best player in the world doesn't make any sense.
It's still the same math in terms of probablitity.

I'm not saying it's absoutely 5 times greater or less but it does have an impact especially on 2nd team all star selections and top 5 voting for awards like MVP.

It would not affect the top players, ie. Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux as much as the 2nd level of stars.

i'll give it some more thought, maybe I'm not explaining my thoughts clear enough on this matter.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2011, 10:24 PM
  #56
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,796
vCash: 500
Norris tropy voting record

Updated through 2011**

PLAYER FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH FIFTH TOTAL
Ray Bourque 5 6 4 4 0 19
Nicklas Lidstrom 7 3 1 1 0 12
Paul Coffey 3 2 1 1 4 11
Bobby Orr 8 0 1 0 0 9
Doug Harvey* 7 1 0 1 0 9
Pierre Pilote 3 3 0 2 0 8
Larry Robinson 2 1 3 1 1 8
Chris Chelios 3 2 1 1 0 7
Denis Potvin 3 2 1 1 0 7
Chris Pronger 1 0 3 1 2 7
Brad Park 0 6 0 1 0 7
Bill Gadsby* 0 3 2 1 1 7
Borje Salming 0 2 2 2 1 7
Scott Stevens 0 2 1 2 2 7
Brian Leetch 2 0 1 1 2 6
Al MacInnis 1 3 2 0 0 6
Jacques Laperriere 1 1 0 2 2 6
Tim Horton 0 2 2 2 0 6
Guy Lapointe 0 1 1 2 2 6
Rod Langway 2 0 1 0 2 5
Zdeno Chara 1 1 2 1 0 5
Rob Blake 1 0 2 1 1 5
Marcel Pronovost 0 1 2 0 2 5
JC Tremblay 0 1 1 1 2 5
Fern Flaman 0 0 3 0 2 5
Red Kelly* 1 2 1 0 0 4
Scott Niedermayer 1 2 0 0 1 4
Doug Wilson 1 0 1 2 0 4
Mark Howe 0 3 0 0 1 4
Larry Murphy 0 0 2 1 1 4
Phil Housley 0 0 1 0 3 4
Sergei Gonchar 0 0 0 3 1 4
Serge Savard 0 0 0 1 3 4
Tom Johnson 1 0 0 1 1 3
Carl Brewer 0 1 1 1 0 3
Bill White 0 0 3 0 0 3
Pat Stapleton 0 0 1 2 0 3

* Played at least a few peak years before Norris trophy was first awarded in 1954

** Hopefully this is right. This is an update of an update of an update, and hopefully nothing has fallen through the cracks.

- Players in bold moved up in 2011
- This is not intended to be an all-inclusive ranking. Most importantly, this metric does not take into account quality of competition, or performance in the playoffs.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2011, 11:24 PM
  #57
WingsFan95
Registered User
 
WingsFan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Lidstrom is Top 3 without question after tonight.

Orr is #1.

After that it's Bourque/Lidstrom in whichever order.

I have tremendous respect for Harvey but I don't think considering the era he measures up to Ray or Nick.

WingsFan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2011, 11:26 PM
  #58
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingsFan95 View Post
Lidstrom is Top 3 without question after tonight.

Orr is #1.

After that it's Bourque/Lidstrom in whichever order.

I have tremendous respect for Harvey but I don't think considering the era he measures up to Ray or Nick.
Add playoffs and longevity and league context we could put Lidstrom number 1 but let's wait until his career is over.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2011, 11:27 PM
  #59
WingsFan95
Registered User
 
WingsFan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Add playoffs and longevity and league context we could put Lidstrom number 1 but let's wait until his career is over.
Lidstrom over Orr is a no, no.

I really feel no player will ever surpass Orr.

That said Lidstrom is Top 10 skaters all time in my book.

WingsFan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2011, 11:44 PM
  #60
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingsFan95 View Post
Lidstrom over Orr is a no, no.

I really feel no player will ever surpass Orr.

That said Lidstrom is Top 10 skaters all time in my book.
I'd say that msot people would agree with you on the 1st count but then again thier main criteria is peak and Orr clealry wins there.

Like I said, longevity, playoffs and league context all factor into my opinion that there is an arguement for Lidstrom being number 1.

Interesting note is that Lidstrom needs 13 points to tie Coffey as the top scroing Dman in playoff history, I wonder if he makes it.

On your 2nd point Lidstrom was 17th on the top 100 list on these boards (6th for Dmen). I wonder how far he has risen if any in the minds of the voters (not sure he would get top 10 yet from that crowd, just an observation mind you)

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-22-2011, 11:53 PM
  #61
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
IMO, a coherent case can be made that Harvey, Shore, Bourque and Lidstrom are on the same level. Saying that Bourque and Lidstrom are definitely the best of the 4 is showing as much unwarranted bias towards modern players as saying that Shore and Harvey are definitely the better two shows bias towards old timers

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 02:13 AM
  #62
Mantha Poodoo
Playoff Beard
 
Mantha Poodoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,106
vCash: 500
An interesting comparison, Lidstrom vs Orr

Orr: Talent. No question for peak talent. Who knows, maybe Lidstrom is technically more talented than Orr, but Orr had much weaker competition. Maybe not. The fact remains that, regardless of circumstance, Orr ridiculously dominated his competition. Hard to argue that the conditions were so much favorable for him (if at all, and indeed some people think the opposite) to make any decent argument here.

Lidstrom: Career. Probably the best career for a d-man out there, taking longevity, trophies, success into account (Bourque close second, in my opinion. Harvey/Orr 3rd).

Weight talent and success equally. Is the gap between Orr's talent and Lidstrom's talent greater than the gap in careers? Lesser?

I think it certainly makes a case for Lidstrom being the most all-around successful of all time, level of play over years, etc. Bourque also has a very strong case here. Orr is certainly the most dominant for his peak; if I had to name a #2 in that regard, perhaps Shore. Perhaps Harvey. Lidstrom and Bourque have tougher competition.

Now, you tell me what best is. I'll tell you that at this level of play personal preference plays a large factor in placement. I tend to give Lidstrom a nod because I'm a Wings fan, some give Bourque the nod because they prefer his style over Lidstrom's euro style, some prefer Bourques 19 years of high vote placement, some prefer Lidstrom's greater 1st place finishes... everyone has their biases.

Mantha Poodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 02:26 AM
  #63
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Ugh, so the hockey writers voted extremly narrowly to give Lidstrom another Norris in the worst season for defensemen in decades, and now he's being compared to Orr?

Comparing Lidstrom to Orr makes about as much sense as comparing Mark Messier to Mario Lemieux.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 02:30 AM
  #64
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Ugh, so the hockey writers voted extremly narrowly to give Lidstrom another Norris in the worst season for defensemen in decades, and now he's being compared to Orr?

Comparing Lidstrom to Orr makes about as much sense as comparing Mark Messier to Mario Lemieux.
That is quite weird statement. Worst season compared to what?
Just because someone doesn't blow away everyone else does not mean he had the worst season or anything. It actually shows that dominating the field is harder and harder every year.

That said Lidstrom definitely won this one on reputation, but considering he should have won in 98 and could have won in 09 and 05 and that it took a lot of time before his style was really appreciated this Norris trophy is a great addition to his collection.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 02:36 AM
  #65
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
That is quite weird statement. Worst season compared to what?
Just because someone doesn't blow away everyone else does not mean he had the worst season or anything. It actually shows that dominating the field is harder and harder every year.

That said Lidstrom definitely won this one on reputation, but considering he should have won in 98 and could have won in 09 and 05 and that it took a lot of time before his style was really appreciated this Norris trophy is a great addition to his collection.
Do you think Lidstrom was better this year than last year when he wasn't even a finalist for the Norris? Pretty much everyone agrees that Lidstrom isn't as good as he used to be, but he won, largely because nobody else had a particularly good season, either.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 06-23-2011 at 03:59 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 09:35 AM
  #66
WingsFan95
Registered User
 
WingsFan95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,872
vCash: 500
Like Reds4Life said, there were seasons Lidstrom should have won and didn't.

A 7th Norris is just right for those people who count Norris Trophies only to warrant greatness.

Hell he's an 8 time Norris winner to me.

Still not better than Orr though, yikes.

WingsFan95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 09:42 AM
  #67
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Cackalacky
Posts: 48,327
vCash: 500
I could see this season being called the "worst" for defensemen in a while in terms of top-end performances, but I think there are several years with less depth. 2007-08 comes to mind when Lidstrom absolutely destroyed the field despite missing 10 games; outside of his fantastic performance that year, I'd say the top 4 from this year were better than any of the others that season.

Epsilon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 10:01 AM
  #68
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Do you think Lidstrom was better this year than last year when he wasn't even a finalist for the Norris? Pretty much everyone agrees that Lidstrom isn't as good as he used to be, but he won, largely because nobody else had a particularly good season, either.
And what is particularly good season? Is there a standard?

Again, because there is more competition and the elite defensemen are on a similar level, it is harder to stand out. But that does not mean they did not have good seasons.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 11:42 AM
  #69
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Ugh, so the hockey writers voted extremly narrowly to give Lidstrom another Norris in the worst season for defensemen in decades, and now he's being compared to Orr?

Comparing Lidstrom to Orr makes about as much sense as comparing Mark Messier to Mario Lemieux.
I agree with the point you're making (what does one season of arguably Lidstrom's worst hockey really do to boost his argument), but I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that Lidstrom would be as competitive to Orr for recognition as Messier was to Lemieux. A better analogy would be to compare forwards from different generations, because Messier was competing directly with Lemieux during his three Hart nominations.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 11:43 AM
  #70
doktor2d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 52
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wheeled Winger View Post
An interesting comparison, Lidstrom vs Orr
Interesting dichotomy in that Orr was an immediate legend whose final full season came at the age of 26. Lidstrom had a climb to greatness, stepping into a dominant role when Konstantinov was injured. Lidstrom was 27 in his first season without Konstantinov.

So ... let's splice together Orr until the age of 27 and Lidstrom from 27 on and make a Frankenstein defenseman that is out of this world.

Orrstrom
1664 GP, 442G, 1229Ast, 1671Pt, +869, 1256PIM
15 Norris Trophies, 3 Harts, 3 Conn Smythes, 2 Art Rosses, 1 Calder

Obviously, Orr alone produced a lot of these ... Art Ross and Hart Trophies. And Orr had more goals and points in the 621 games he contributed to Orrstrom than Lidstrom had in 1,043 games. And Orr was a +581 and Lidstrom (just) a +288.

Still, the thought of a defenseman with 1,671 points, a +869 with 442 goals, 15 Norris Trophies, 3 Harts, 3 Smythes and 5 Stanley Cups (can't count Lidstrom's Cup as a 26-year-old) is a fun notion.

Although I'm still trying to come to terms with a defenseman who didn't hit anyone (like Lidstrom) but when he dropped the gloves was a vicious attacker (like Orr).

doktor2d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 11:54 AM
  #71
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,466
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
And what is particularly good season? Is there a standard?

Again, because there is more competition and the elite defensemen are on a similar level, it is harder to stand out. But that does not mean they did not have good seasons.
None of them were well-rounded like in past years.


Weber may have relied too much on Rinne and Suter.
Chara had 34 points fewer than the defensive scoring leader.
Visnovsky didn't play on the penalty kill.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:10 PM
  #72
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
And what is particularly good season? Is there a standard?

Again, because there is more competition and the elite defensemen are on a similar level, it is harder to stand out. But that does not mean they did not have good seasons.
I realize you like to repeat th line that there is more competition now. However, it really isn't applicable in this case. It is not "harder to stand out" in 2011 than it was in 2009 or 2010, both seasons when Lidstrom was better than he was in 2011, but did not win the Norris.

In 2011, there was not a single
defenseman who was elite at both ends of the ice. Lidstrom happened to be the best defensively of the elite offensive guys, but his defensive game was worse than it was even the year before, when he wasn't even top 3 overall

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:17 PM
  #73
KingGallagherXI
Registered User
 
KingGallagherXI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,834
vCash: 500
Would Harvey have won the Norris in 1952 or 1953 against Kelly?

KingGallagherXI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:38 PM
  #74
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
Would Harvey have won the Norris in 1952 or 1953 against Kelly?
I could have sworn there was a pre-norris year where he had the most all-star voting points, but... I guess not. If you transfer over the all-star votes at par value (which I would find 100% acceptable), then the 5 norris winners prior to the real Norris being introduced, are Mortson, Kelly, Kelly, Kelly, Kelly (Harvey being runner-up in the last three)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-23-2011, 12:53 PM
  #75
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McNuts View Post
Would Harvey have won the Norris in 1952 or 1953 against Kelly?
Kelly was a unanimous choice for 1st team all-star in 51, 52 & 53, so I'd have to say it's unlikely.

1952-53
Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0)
Doug Harvey, Mtl 56 (8-5-1) Not on 4 ballots
Bill Quackenbush, Bos 44 (4-7-3) Not on 4 ballots
Bill Gadsby, Chi 30 (3-2-9) Not on 4 ballots

1951-52
Red Kelly, Det 90 (18-0-0)
Doug Harvey, Mtl 71 (12-3-2) Not on 1 ballot
Hy Buller, NYR 47 (1-13-3) Not on 1 ballot
Jim Thomson, Tor 38 (2-6-10)

Should note that there were not really 18 voters, but the votes were weighted so each city had 3 votes.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dyk_AAAAIBAJ&sjid=a1AMAAAAIBAJ&pg=40 56,2295560&dq=kelly+all-star&hl=en

Quote:
Toronto, Detroit and Chicago, for example, each had three selectors, which is the minimum number of selectors per city, while New York and Boston had six selectors each and Montreal had 22.


Last edited by BM67: 06-23-2011 at 12:58 PM.
BM67 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 06:31 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.