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.

Top 10 All-time Defensemen

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-22-2009, 01:00 PM
  #101
sidewayzLEAFS
 
sidewayzLEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ontario, canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
id take potvin over lidstrom whether i needed a goal or was leading by a goal...nuff said

also, i realize this guy is no where near the top 10 d-men, but where would you guys place Denis Savard in the top all-time defensemen? top 20, 25?
cause he sure did score some beauty goals ans that savardian spinorama..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLB3DujcTg

sidewayzLEAFS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 01:03 PM
  #102
Fire Julien
Registered User
 
Fire Julien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bergen
Country: Norway
Posts: 17,596
vCash: 1340
Quote:
Originally Posted by sidewayzLEAFS View Post
id take potvin over lidstrom whether i needed a goal or was leading by a goal...nuff said

also, i realize this guy is no where near the top 10 d-men, but where would you guys place Denis Savard in the top all-time defensemen? top 20, 25?
cause he sure did score some beauty goals ans that savardian spinorama..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLB3DujcTg
Hard to throw a forward in an all-time defensemen list.

Fire Julien is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 01:10 PM
  #103
Pantokrator
Who's the clown?
 
Pantokrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Semmes, Alabama
Country: Guatemala
Posts: 4,319
vCash: 500
I have a question (due to my ignorance):

For those who rank Bourque above Potvin and Lidstrom, what is it about him that causes you to do this? I am just wondering. I honestly don't know who I would want in what position among those three, but I want some good info so I can make a better decision. Thanks!

Pantokrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 01:18 PM
  #104
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I was being facetious. Of course those injuries were tragedies - but it was not in any way a guarantee those players would maintain whatever PPG they had going into their injuries, just like Gretzky was not able to maintain his 3.4 PPG average in 1984.

It is a "disappointment" because those players are much more valuable to their teams on the ice, than they are off the ice. The ability to remain healthy and playing is an important aspect to ranking players "all-time".


There have been a number of years where I believe Lidstrom has been the best in the league -- 2008 being the most recent example. He outscored the nearest defenseman by a larger margin than the forwards ahead of him for the Hart did compared to their nearest competition and Lidstrom was even more valuable defensively than he was offensively.
A guy like Forsberg, Lindros, or Kariya who couldnt stay healthy it is a knock against them, but cancer, car accidents, are just wrong place wrong time bad luck things that are unavoidable. Thats one of the reasons like the example I had earlier of a player that absolutely torched the league after 1 season I would have as one of the best of all time. If Lidstrom had gotten crippled after 2001 ended it doesnt make him any less of a player in my eyes. Even though he loses accomplishments, he was still just as good of a player to me.

2008 Lidstrom dominated his defensive peers to a great degree true, but did he dominate the game to a greater degree than Malkin, Ovechkin, etc? I dont think he did. He was the best defender in the game but I dont believe he was the best player in the game. Bourque at times didnt just tower over the other defenseman of the time, he was better than any other forward and goalie as well. Again just my opinion though.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 01:24 PM
  #105
detoxx
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 39
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantokrator View Post
I have a question (due to my ignorance):

For those who rank Bourque above Potvin and Lidstrom, what is it about him that causes you to do this? I am just wondering. I honestly don't know who I would want in what position among those three, but I want some good info so I can make a better decision. Thanks!
Bourque accomplished more than each guy:
NHL First All-Star Team (1980, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, 2001)
NHL Second All-Star Team (1981, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1995, 1999)
Norris Trophy: (1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994)

being named to the 1st and 2nd all-star team 19 times is insane, his longevity is practically unmatched.

Lidstrom is coming close in terms of longevity, but he doesn't have nearly as much competition as Bourque did, and Potvin just doesn't have the longevity to match Bourque's career

detoxx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 01:26 PM
  #106
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 Pantokrator View Post
I have a question (due to my ignorance):

For those who rank Bourque above Potvin and Lidstrom, what is it about him that causes you to do this? I am just wondering. I honestly don't know who I would want in what position among those three, but I want some good info so I can make a better decision. Thanks!
Bourque was at an elite level, at the top of the league, for an even longer time than Lidstrom: From 1980 when he was a 1st Team All Star as a rookie, until 2001 when he retired as a 1st Team All Star, Bourque was always in the discussion as the best defenseman in the league.

13 First Team All Star Selections
6 Second Team All Star Selections

Great two-way defenseman who could do it all. Outside of Howe, literally the measure of sustained excellence in the NHL.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 01:47 PM
  #107
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 NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
A guy like Forsberg, Lindros, or Kariya who couldnt stay healthy it is a knock against them, but cancer, car accidents, are just wrong place wrong time bad luck things that are unavoidable. Thats one of the reasons like the example I had earlier of a player that absolutely torched the league after 1 season I would have as one of the best of all time. If Lidstrom had gotten crippled after 2001 ended it doesnt make him any less of a player in my eyes. Even though he loses accomplishments, he was still just as good of a player to me.
But the end result is still the same - not on the ice; not scoring goals; and not preventing goals = simply not as valuable.

Cancer was not Lemieux's only problem -- he played a game that led to numerous back injuries, just like Orr's game led to his knee injuries.

If Lidstrom was out of the game in 2001, I doubt we would be talking about him for the top 20 all-time, let alone the top 5.

There were 0 games in the NHL in 2005 for any player, and only half the games in 1995 -- yet I hardly hear anyone try to award bonus points for those years -- which are really the years where the best case can be made for awarding them.

Quote:
2008 Lidstrom dominated his defensive peers to a great degree true, but did he dominate the game to a greater degree than Malkin, Ovechkin, etc? I dont think he did. He was the best defender in the game but I dont believe he was the best player in the game. Bourque at times didnt just tower over the other defenseman of the time, he was better than any other forward and goalie as well. Again just my opinion though.
I believe he did, simply because he dominated to such a degree on both ends of the ice (unlike Malkin or Ovechkin). He doesn't score highlight-reel goals or deliver earth-shattering hits (like how we often think of a "dominant" player) -- he simply quietly plays a perfect game and contributed more to his team winning than either of those players that year.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 04:40 PM
  #108
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantokrator View Post
I have a question (due to my ignorance):

For those who rank Bourque above Potvin and Lidstrom, what is it about him that causes you to do this? I am just wondering. I honestly don't know who I would want in what position among those three, but I want some good info so I can make a better decision. Thanks!
I am in the minority, but I personally like Potvin ever so slightly over Bourque, and I don't have Lidstrom in the same bracket with these two guys. I have Lidstrom in the 6-10 debate. Although, to me, these debates are always flawed for dozens of reasons. Foremost, they rely way too much on stats, awards, hardware, guesswork (if we haven't actually seen a certain player play), and criteria importance that's dramatically different from one person to the next (longevity vs peak is one constant example).

My criteria is always this: what did I see with my own eyes? I'm in my 40s and didn't see Shore and Harvey play. If I didn't see these two play, how on earth do I make a genuine comparison between the two? I can't. I can study up and make a best educated guess, but at the end of the day that's all it amounts to, a guess. Awards and stats to me are somewhat limiting because too many factors can sway them. Level of competition, rules, style of play that was winning at the time, the quality of a player's teammates and upper management, even a player's level of popularity and how likable they are (with fans and media) can affect award voting. I always have and always will rely on what I see with my own two eyes.

Unlike Shore and Harvey, I have had the good fortune of watching Potvin, Bourque and Lidstrom play during their entire careers. In my opinion -- and the fact that it's my opinion is an important distinction, because it is weighted by what I place value on -- I like Potvin over Bourque and I don't see Lidstrom in the same category as these two guys. If you ask me next Tuesday, though, I may say Bourque over Potvin. These guys were that great, that exceptional, and that dominant. And if someone sitting next to me said they like Bourque over Potvin, I wouldn't even ask them why. They have their own criteria and valuations, and Bourque was that great that you don't even need to explain to me why you'd place him 4th all-time. And if someone sitting on the other side of me said (4) Bourque (5) Lidstrom (6) Potvin, that wouldn't bother me either. Lidstrom's an exceptional player and I would respect someone else's opinion that they might think he's better than Potvin. And ultimately, I guess that's what the answer to your question boils down to: it's simply personal opinion and perception.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 05:35 PM
  #109
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Lidstrom was better defensively and puts up a heck of a lot more points than Potvin did in the 80s -- add on the fact Potvin was often injured for more than 10% of the season and I see no reason asides from your preference for hitting and physical play. Physical play is nice, but it is not any more effective in keeping pucks out of the net than Lidstrom being in the perfect place at the perfect time and essentially serving as a black hole in the defensive end.
Lidstrom would not put up more points than potvin did. Not without chaning his style. At best, lidstrom would be Ray Bourque with 10% less offense in the 70's/80's. And Defensively? potvin was as good as Scott Stevens in his defense only years, only while also poviding the offense. And Stevens was very very close to lidstrom defensively. The gap between Potvin's offense over lidstrom is much larger than Lidstrom's small defensive edge.


Quote:
Wilson, Hartsburg, Carlysle, Engblom, Becke, Howe, Marsh, Lowe, Larson, Babych, Marois, Green, Samuelsson, Ramsey, Patrick, McCrimmon were all beating Potvin in Norris votes in the 80s -- are all of them better than Lidstrom's competition as well?
Wilson, Howe and Carlyle in their best years were equal to or better than Pronger, Niedermayer or Blake. You try to point at their career achievements and say "Look, they are not as good", but it is a paper shield. In their best years they were outstanding, and many of the other names there were as well.

Besides which, it is moot. On per per game basis, Potvin was more valuable than any of them.


Quote:
Potvin's injuries kept him from contributing squat to his team while he was injured and largely contributed to an early retirement. That's a liability; though sure -- it helped him produce more on a per game basis. Though I bet if I adjust for era Lidstrom on a point per game basis is very comparable to Potvin.
I wasn't talking about points per game. I was talking about the complete package per game. Potvin, offensively, Defensively and everything else he brought to the table on top in 70 games was worth a Lidstrom in 82 games.

Quote:
Hogwash. Lidstrom's style would prevent him from scoring 35+ goals, but increased overall scoring makes 55 assists in the clutch and grab period into 75 assists in the 80s. 60 assists post-lockout is well over 80 in the 80s. Lidstrom would be scoring 90+ points in the 70s and 100+ points in the 80s.
Nope. Lidstrom's style would not have gotten him more than a 10-15 point boost a year on his stats. His very style would not have been as effective in the 70's/80's anyways

Quote:
Lidstrom outperformed Potvin in assists in a much deeper league (and finished as high as 17th overall) than the league Potvin was in during the 70s. Potvin jumped up more often to score more goals, but Lidstrom makes up for that with better defense.
Lidstrom's defensive edge over Potvin is tiny. Certainly not as big as the offensive edge. I don't care what stats you continually bring up. I saw what i saw with my own eyes.

Quote:
There is no doubt in my mind Potvin could easily have a couple Conn Smythes to his name. But Lidstrom could have more than his one, as well.
Lidstrom only has 1 Smythe worthy performance, and it is not equal to several of Potvin's performances.

Quote:
Over his career Potvin had 164 points in 185 games. .89 PPG
Lidstrom has had 165 points in 235 games. .70 PPG

It does not take much wizardry to realize Lidstrom's numbers and PPG would look a heck of a lot better in the 70s and 80s.
No, they really really wouldn't. You still don't get it do you? The reason other people were out scoring more in the 80's is because they took more chances and went out looking for gambling opportunities. Lidstrom would nto suddenly become a miraculous scorer without changing his game to adapt to the style of the time. Lidstrom, for lack of a better comparison, would be a Mark Howe in the 80's.

Quote:
Scoring averaged 7.34 GPG from 1975 to 1988 (when Potvin was in the playoffs)
Scoring averaged 5.85 GPG from 1992 to 2009 (when Lidstrom was in the playoffs)

Normalizing that gives Lidstrom 207 pts in 235 games or .88 PPG --> virtually identical to Potvin.
That's why lidstrom was eating up the league offensively in his early years when scoring was that high right? Lidstrom's offensive style changed not one bit from when he started to present day and that part of his game never really improved. it just stayed constantly good. He always played a safe stay at home style. He just was not as good defensively early in his career. A trait he worked at and worked at as the league changed and eventually he became the best at.

He would not be lighting the league up without sacrificing some of his defense, and his defensive style would not have been as effective in the early days.
Quote:
If I wasn't lazy, and actually factored in that the majority of Potvin's playoff games took place in the higher scoring 80s, and the majority of Lidstrom's playoff games came in the much lower scoring dead puck era and post-lockout (as opposed to the early 90s) -- Lidstrom would easily get the edge in the playoffs.
Already covered this.

Quote:
I don't buy it. You admit Lidstrom was better defensively, and I have shown Potvin barely outproduced Lidstrom offensively in their best years.
you have not shown anything. You have made faulty assumptions based on an era you know nothing about except what you see on paper. lidstrom's defensive edge on Potvin is much smaller than potvin's offensive edge.

Quote:
Your assertion of 5 years has nothing to back it up but your own waxing nostalgic eyes.
Your constant backing of Lidstrom against players who were better than him in their peaks is nothing more than red wing goggles. You have Little objectivity when it comes to red wing players vs anyone else. I am not a fan of either team, and both players were among my favorites of all time. I am being completely objective. You are not.

Quote:
Lidstrom's 73 points in 2000 was good for 93 pts the year Potvin scored 101. His 80 pts in 2006 is good for 90 pts in 1979.
Probably a little less, but close sure. Potvin would have lit the world on fire in 2006 though. Lidstrom's and everyone's scoring that year was in correlation with the new rules and tons of PP's the league generated that year. Potvin's power play quarterbacking was superior to Lidstrom's by no small margin.

Quote:
I'll give you 3 years (76, 78 and 79) where Potvin offensively outproduced Lidstrom's best, but the margin is barely 10%. That does not blow me away -- and Lidstrom has at least 3-4 seasons better than Potvin's 4th best.
Your problem is you are looking at stats and you did not see Potvin play. Potvin in 74-75 was better(Carried that team on his back). 75-76 was better. 76-77, 77-78, and 78-79. No, I don't care for your silly stats argument. I saw him play.


Quote:
Because non-physical defensemen in the 70s were utterly ineffective? Like Salming?
I had no idea forwards were so much larger and faster back then than they are today.
Did you just imply that Salming was not physical?

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=1...1&postcount=60

I posted the reasons Lidstrom's angle cutting style would not be as effective here.

Quote:
It's a lot more than "barely".
Potvin may have 2-3 years slightly better than Lidstrom's best, but then he follows it up with only 3 more seasons anywhere in the ballpark of Lidstrom's consistent excellence, and then Lidstrom tacks on a good 5+ years of Norris caliber years on top of it, which Potvin cannot compare to.
its nothing more than barely.


Quote:
Lidstrom's peak/prime is literally twice as long as Potvin's.
No, it wasn't. In trophy voting alone maybe. on a per game basis, Many of Potvin's 70 game seasons were better than lidstrom on average during Lidstrom's best


Quote:
Because all those guys had incredibly high peaks -- why are they not in the top 100 if that is what is most important? I would guess someone like Potvin distinguishes himself with many more years of sustained excellence - just as Lidstrom distinguishes himself from Potvin.
And I do not award any bonus points for missed games to injury.
Not if you are looking at career no. but looking at peak, Potvin's 70 game season were better than many of Lidstrom's 82 game seasons.


Quote:
In 1984 Gretzky scored 100 pts in only 34 games. Unfortunately for him he ended up playing most of those remaining games and only ended up scoring 205 pts -- if he was lucky enough to get injured at that time, people like you would never let us hear the end of how "Gretzky was on pace to score 272 points in 1984, if it weren't for his injury".
This analogy is not fitting at all.

Gretzky always started stronger than he finished. 2 different players and situations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Potvin has placed 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 in Norris voting -- 6 great seasons with a couple more good seasons.
Lidstrom has placed 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 8

Eliminating the redundancy and it becomes:
Potvin = 4, 10
Lidstrom = 1, 1, 1, 2, 6, 6, 6, 8

Yes, Lidstrom has a hell of a lot more great, as well as good, seasons than Potvin.
Nobody was denying lidstrom had a longevity edge. but those finishes of Lidstrom's would be drastically reduced against Potvin's competition AND this does not take into account that several of the 70's and 80's year only has the top 5 Voting, when Potvin would undoubtedly have some 6th place finishes.

Quote:
Competition was better for top defensemen in the 80s and 90s than it was in the 70s and 00s -- Potvin lost to a lot of great defensemen in the 80s as well as a lot of not-so-great defensemen. Admittedly he was not as good of a player as he was in the 70s.
Correction. Competition in the 90's was strong until about 1996-97, when it took a visible gigantic step down as all the best started to get older and slower and few young defensemen were replacing them. Between 1991-96 when competition was still strong, Lidstrom had no top 5 finishes. Competition became very very weak from 97 forward, as all the best players were shadows of their former selves.

Quote:
Lidstrom did much better in the 90s (2, 2, 2, 6, 6, 8), than Potvin did in the 80s (2, 4, 8, 10) -- and Lidstrom's game improved a lot in the 00s.
All against over the hill competition in the late 90's. The late 90's does not even remotely compare to the 80's. you point at guys like Carlyle and Wilson winning, but they had outstanding seasons, and pointing at their careers does not take away from their outstanding seasons. Certainly Wilson and Carlyle's years were better than Blake's. Everyone loves to hate on Carlyle, who had only a flash in the pan year, but forget that that flash in the pan year was stellar.

Quote:
And Lidstrom was still winning Norrises in his 15th season.
Lidstrom was one of those players who got better as he got older instead of vice versa.

Quote:
Potvin never again had performances similar to what he did in the 70s.
He had some incredible playoff runs on a dynasty team, absolutely.
Yes, he did. Simply not as big because he missed a few more games. On a per game basis, Potvin's 80-81 to 84-85 were still superstar stellar. Against 2000-09 competition in Lidstrom's place, they likely even win him a few Norris trophies.

Quote:
Lidstrom fared much better in the 90s than Potvin did in the 80s.
Their best seasons are also very comparable, except Lidstrom maintained that high level for much, much longer than Potvin... and Lidstrom is not done yet.
Their best seasons are not comparable at all.

Quote:
The year Potvin came into the islanders also happens to be the year Al Arbour came. Detroit experienced a similar drop over the first 5 years Lidstrom played for the team -- but I hesitate to single out one player as the main reason.
Potvin carried that team in his early years on his back. visibly.


Quote:
Potvin started out with a bang but did not maintain that level for long, while Lidstrom slowly built up steam and is still rolling at the top of a much better league for a much longer period than Potvin.
Potvin maintained that level for many year more than you imply.

Quote:
It is. I'd say it is the 6th or 7th best resume of all-time for defenseman.
Lidstrom's is better though, and by no small margin.
6th in my opinion, while Lidstrom is 5th. But the gap is much smaller than you are implying.

The gap between 4th and 5th is much much larger.
Lidstrom's is better though, and by no small margin.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 05:37 PM
  #110
sidewayzLEAFS
 
sidewayzLEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ontario, canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
bourque is above both potvin an lidstrom as he was so dominant and had longevity too..

0rr
shore
harvey
bourque
potvin
coffey
lidstrom
robinson
kelly
park




fetisov
stevens
leetch
mcInnis

sidewayzLEAFS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 05:39 PM
  #111
sidewayzLEAFS
 
sidewayzLEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ontario, canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
heres a good breakdown vid of the top d-men from youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLB3DujcTg




sidewayzLEAFS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 06:53 PM
  #112
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 Jekyll View Post
Lidstrom would not put up more points than potvin did. Not without chaning his style. At best, lidstrom would be Ray Bourque with 10% less offense in the 70's/80's. And Defensively? potvin was as good as Scott Stevens in his defense only years, only while also poviding the offense. And Stevens was very very close to lidstrom defensively. The gap between Potvin's offense over lidstrom is much larger than Lidstrom's small defensive edge.
Lidstrom would only have to alter his game if he wanted to score goals like Potvin in the 70s. Plop him on that Islanders team and let him pad his stats against the abundance of rotten teams around at the time and his assists would sky-rocket.

Quote:
Wilson, Howe and Carlyle in their best years were equal to or better than Pronger, Niedermayer or Blake. You try to point at their career achievements and say "Look, they are not as good", but it is a paper shield. In their best years they were outstanding, and many of the other names there were as well.
Uhhh... Potvin was losing out to Hartsburg, Engblom, Becke, Marsh, Lowe, Larson, Babych, Marois, Green, Samuelsson, Ramsey, Patrick, and McCrimmon in the 80s as well. Not just Wilson, Howe and Carlyle. Were they all better than Lidstrom's competition as well?

Quote:
Besides which, it is moot. On per per game basis, Potvin was more valuable than any of them.
The Norris voters at the time certainly disagreed with you.
Yeah, I have *****ed about Lidstrom placing 2nd in 1998 and 3rd in 2009, but you are talking about Potvin deserving to be bumped 3-9 (and more) places ahead of where he ended up in the voting, not a mere 1 or 2 places like I am.

Quote:
I wasn't talking about points per game. I was talking about the complete package per game. Potvin, offensively, Defensively and everything else he brought to the table on top in 70 games was worth a Lidstrom in 82 games.
Ha! What did he bring? Worse defense, less points and less games?

You are such a "hits" slappy. Didn't you state Phaneuf deserved the runner-up for the Norris in 2008?

Quote:
Nope. Lidstrom's style would not have gotten him more than a 10-15 point boost a year on his stats. His very style would not have been as effective in the 70's/80's anyways
Playing in a higher-scoring era, on a dynasty team with every other game against an AHL level team certainly would though.

Quote:
Lidstrom's defensive edge over Potvin is tiny. Certainly not as big as the offensive edge. I don't care what stats you continually bring up. I saw what i saw with my own eyes.
I've read quotes from Potvin stating Al Arbour had to remind him to be more responsible defensively -- never heard a coach needing to tell Lidstrom that.

"With your own eyes" -- Did you live in New York? I'm curious how many Islanders games you were able to catch each season back then. I caught playoff games, but that was about it.

Quote:
Lidstrom only has 1 Smythe worthy performance, and it is not equal to several of Potvin's performances.
I disagree. 1998 was tip-top for Lidstrom and he was a beast to behold in the 2007... had Detroit advanced. He was listed amongst the top considerations for 2008 (along with Osgood) and his handling of the Legion of Doom in 1997 was none too shabby either -- but Lidstrom's play should have been ineffective against that, right?

Quote:
No, they really really wouldn't. You still don't get it do you? The reason other people were out scoring more in the 80's is because they took more chances and went out looking for gambling opportunities. Lidstrom would nto suddenly become a miraculous scorer without changing his game to adapt to the style of the time. Lidstrom, for lack of a better comparison, would be a Mark Howe in the 80's.
Did you think I was a tweener or something?
Lidstrom would not need to put up 35+ goals in the 70s or 80s to score 90+ points.
Regardless, he has done quite well for himself jumping up into the play, though he usually has not done so -- often being the "defensively responsible" member of his defensive pairing. He certainly has a good shot.

Quote:
That's why lidstrom was eating up the league offensively in his early years when scoring was that high right? Lidstrom's offensive style changed not one bit from when he started to present day and that part of his game never really improved. it just stayed constantly good. He always played a safe stay at home style. He just was not as good defensively early in his career. A trait he worked at and worked at as the league changed and eventually he became the best at.
Lidstrom got better as the years wore on, Potvin got worse. So what?

Quote:
you have not shown anything. You have made faulty assumptions based on an era you know nothing about except what you see on paper. lidstrom's defensive edge on Potvin is much smaller than potvin's offensive edge.
I am obviously a lot older than you think.

Quote:
Your constant backing of Lidstrom against players who were better than him in their peaks is nothing more than red wing goggles. You have Little objectivity when it comes to red wing players vs anyone else. I am not a fan of either team, and both players were among my favorites of all time. I am being completely objective. You are not.
And your refusal to consider actual results and stats over "your own eyes" is the complete opposite of objective.

I also question just how much of Potvin's games you were able to catch in the 70s and 80s.

Quote:
Probably a little less, but close sure. Potvin would have lit the world on fire in 2006 though. Lidstrom's and everyone's scoring that year was in correlation with the new rules and tons of PP's the league generated that year. Potvin's power play quarterbacking was superior to Lidstrom's by no small margin.
You're like the anti-Nordic

Quote:
Your problem is you are looking at stats and you did not see Potvin play. Potvin in 74-75 was better(Carried that team on his back). 75-76 was better. 76-77, 77-78, and 78-79. No, I don't care for your silly stats argument. I saw him play.
Well, I did watch him in the playoffs from about 1980 on...

I don't buy your "I saw him play, so I do not have to back it up with anything" argument... as compelling as it is.


Quote:
Did you just imply that Salming was not physical?
Salming did not rely primarily on physical play in any sense of the word.

Quote:
No, it wasn't. In trophy voting alone maybe. on a per game basis, Many of Potvin's 70 game seasons were better than lidstrom on average during Lidstrom's best
Again, your "eyes" told you a completely different story from the Norris voters at the time -- and we are talking about a major disparity here. Who should I believe?

Quote:
Nobody was denying lidstrom had a longevity edge. but those finishes of Lidstrom's would be drastically reduced against Potvin's competition AND this does not take into account that several of the 70's and 80's year only has the top 5 Voting, when Potvin would undoubtedly have some 6th place finishes.
So instead of having 3 more Norrisses, one more runner-up and some other top 6 finishes in a much deeper league -- he might have only one or two more Norrisses, a few runner-ups and a few more top 3s over Potvin? Still an awfully big difference.

Quote:
Correction. Competition in the 90's was strong until about 1996-97, when it took a visible gigantic step down as all the best started to get older and slower and few young defensemen were replacing them. Between 1991-96 when competition was still strong, Lidstrom had no top 5 finishes. Competition became very very weak from 97 forward, as all the best players were shadows of their former selves.
So competition was strong until literally Lidstrom started taking over? How conveniant for your argument.

Lidstrom got better as the years progressed -- what can I say?

Quote:
Lidstrom was one of those players who got better as he got older instead of vice versa.
Why does it seem like he is being penalized for this?

Quote:
Yes, he did. Simply not as big because he missed a few more games. On a per game basis, Potvin's 80-81 to 84-85 were still superstar stellar. Against 2000-09 competition in Lidstrom's place, they likely even win him a few Norris trophies.
With Lidstrom scoring more points and playing better defense? Sure.

Quote:
Their best seasons are not comparable at all.
So you keep saying - the actual results and scoring at the time beg to differ.

Quote:
Potvin carried that team in his early years on his back. visibly.
He was very good -- I'm certainly not denying that.

Quote:
Potvin maintained that level for many year more than you imply.
Why do the Norris voters at the time strongly disagree with you?

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 07:14 PM
  #113
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Potvin has also lost to much worse competition for the Norris than Lidstrom has.

Are Robinson, Carlysle, Wilson, Langway, Coffey, Chelios and Leetch better than Lidstrom as well? Because they won a Norris against "much tougher competition"?

The league is currently approaching the deepest (talent-wise) it has ever been since the Original 6. The 70s was quite simply a watered-down era with very little parity, and teams nowadays do not get to enjoy consistently beating up on teams like the Canucks, Blues, Rockies, Capitals, North Stars and Barons -- and then the Nordiques, Whalers and Jets in the early 80s -- all of whom were lucky to get more than 20 wins back then. Even the Red Wings at that time would register less than 10 wins in a season.

Top teams (like the Islanders) kicked the crap out of these teams and boosted their stats into the stratosphere.


The "competition" argument works both ways.
Sigh...... Not this ridiculous argument again. Are you going to try to pretend that Lidstrom did not help his own scoring against the weaker teams of his era?

In any case, Potvin brought his A game against the best teams.

Using only Montreal and Philly for 3 seasons between 1976-79(2 of THE greatest defensive teams in History), Potvin scored:
Philly: 8 Goals and 10 Assists in 20 games.
Montreal: 6 goals and 9 assists in 12 games.'
Total 14 goals and 19 assists in 32 games for 33 points in 32 games.

And this is only from 2 of the best defensive teams in History. What exactly do the modern teams have that these superteams did not? The devils may, MAY be comparable slightly to Philly during this timeframe, but no other team from Lidstrom's time compares to the Montreal Dynasty.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 07:32 PM
  #114
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 Jekyll View Post
Sigh...... Not this ridiculous argument again. Are you going to try to pretend that Lidstrom did not help his own scoring against the weaker teams of his era?
You can not deny the league in the 70s was watered-down and there was an incredible lack of parity those years, going into the early 80s as well. There were A LOT of teams back then that sucked a lot worse than the Islanders have for the past few years.

It's not even close to today.

Quote:
In any case, Potvin brought his A game against the best teams.

Using only Montreal and Philly for 3 seasons between 1976-79(2 of THE greatest defensive teams in History), Potvin scored:
Philly: 8 Goals and 10 Assists in 20 games.
Montreal: 6 goals and 9 assists in 12 games.'
Total 14 goals and 19 assists in 32 games for 33 points in 32 games.
I believe it -- though obviously it's much less than what he averaged per game during those seasons -- so he must have been doing much better elsewhere huh?

Quote:
And this is only from 2 of the best defensive teams in History. What exactly do the modern teams have that these superteams did not? The devils may, MAY be comparable slightly to Philly during this timeframe, but no other team from Lidstrom's time compares to the Montreal Dynasty.
Now if Potvin did as well against them, doesn't it stand to reason he was more than capable of really taking advantage of the abundance of utter crappy teams at the time?

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-22-2009, 07:45 PM
  #115
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Lidstrom would only have to alter his game if he wanted to score goals like Potvin in the 70s. Plop him on that Islanders team and let him pad his stats against the abundance of rotten teams around at the time and his assists would sky-rocket.
As previously stated, Potvin did not pad his stats on weak teams.

Potvin in fact was a phenomenal scorer against the best teams.

Quote:
Uhhh... Potvin was losing out to Hartsburg, Engblom, Becke, Marsh, Lowe, Larson, Babych, Marois, Green, Samuelsson, Ramsey, Patrick, and McCrimmon in the 80s as well. Not just Wilson, Howe and Carlyle. Were they all better than Lidstrom's competition as well?
Potvin's 80-81 year and 83-84 year would have won Norris trophies in Lidstrom's time if you swapped them out yes.

Very generous of you to list guys who beat out Potvin either in a season he missed 20 games, or towards his decline in the later 80's.

Quote:
The Norris voters at the time certainly disagreed with you.
Yeah, I have *****ed about Lidstrom placing 2nd in 1998 and 3rd in 2009, but you are talking about Potvin deserving to be bumped 3-9 (and more) places ahead of where he ended up in the voting, not a mere 1 or 2 places like I am.
I don't think he should have been bumped up in the voting at all(Except in the year Carlyle beat him). I accept that his missing of games lost him some Norris votes. But his per game value was much higher than his Norris voting record, and yes, that is what I look at when I judge peak.

Quote:
Ha! What did he bring? Worse defense, less points and less games?
By worse defense, you mean by the slightest of hairs? Denis Potvin was a wizard defensively.

Quote:
You are such a "hits" slappy. Didn't you state Phaneuf deserved the runner-up for the Norris in 2008?
Potvin was more than just a hitter. He was one of the best defensive defensemen in the league, and certainly was very close to Lidstrom in that regard. Anyone who says otherwise simply did not watch him play.

Quote:
Playing in a higher-scoring era, on a dynasty team with every other game against an AHL level team certainly would though.
Potvin played phenomenally against the very best teams. Not just the shrubs.

And Please, let's not talk like the Wings have not bee a head and shoulders above most of the league and Lidstrom did not run up the score against his weak teams too.


Quote:
I've read quotes from Potvin stating Al Arbour had to remind him to be more responsible defensively -- never heard a coach needing to tell Lidstrom that.
Potvin was a phenomenal defensive defenseman. Let's see this quote from Arbour. Link it.

Quote:
"With your own eyes" -- Did you live in New York? I'm curious how many Islanders games you were able to catch each season back then. I caught playoff games, but that was about it.
No, but I did live in LA for 3 years, then Philly for 3 years in the late 70's, early 80's, and the Islanders played Philly 8 times a year, and LA 4 times a year(Which is over 30 games right there), as well as ESPN showing roughly 40 games of Hockey a year and me catching any Hockey I could, as well as all of the playoffs I could.

Quote:
I disagree. 1998 was tip-top for Lidstrom and he was a beast to behold in the 2007... had Detroit advanced. He was listed amongst the top considerations for 2008 (along with Osgood) and his handling of the Legion of Doom in 1997 was none too shabby either -- but Lidstrom's play should have been ineffective against that, right?
Why would Lidstrom's play be ineffective against that? His angle cutting play would be less effective in the 80's for the very reasons I posted earlier in that post.


Quote:
Did you think I was a tweener or something?
Lidstrom would not need to put up 35+ goals in the 70s or 80s to score 90+ points.
Regardless, he has done quite well for himself jumping up into the play, though he usually has not done so -- often being the "defensively responsible" member of his defensive pairing. He certainly has a good shot.
I think at his absolute best, he maxes out at 90-95 points, and generally hovers around 77-83 points.


Quote:
Lidstrom got better as the years wore on, Potvin got worse. So what?
P0otvin was better earlier, lidstorm later.


Quote:
I am obviously a lot older than you think.


And your refusal to consider actual results and stats over "your own eyes" is the complete opposite of objective.
Oh I incorporate stats and awards into my ratings. But I do not rely on them completely. Bobby Orr did not win every Hart trophy, but he was the best player in the league for more than 3 years.

Quote:
I also question just how much of Potvin's games you were able to catch in the 70s and 80s.
As Many as I could.

Quote:
You're like the anti-Nordic
I take that as a compliment.


Quote:
Well, I did watch him in the playoffs from about 1980 on...

I don't buy your "I saw him play, so I do not have to back it up with anything" argument... as compelling as it is.
If you watched Potvin play, then I cannot comprehend your train of thought.


Quote:
Salming did not rely primarily on physical play in any sense of the word.
Salming was quite physical. If you want to compare Lidstrom to a player from back then, take JC Tremblay.


Quote:
Again, your "eyes" told you a completely different story from the Norris voters at the time -- and we are talking about a major disparity here. Who should I believe?
Again with the Norris crap. He could not win Norris trophies missing tons of time, but he would certainly have had 5-6 if he played in Lidstrom's time.

Quote:
So instead of having 3 more Norrisses, one more runner-up and some other top 6 finishes in a much deeper league -- he might have only one or two more Norrisses, a few runner-ups and a few more top 3s over Potvin? Still an awfully big difference.
Lidstrom winning 3 Norris trophies against Potvin's competition sounds about right.


Quote:
So competition was strong until literally Lidstrom started taking over? How conveniant for your argument.
Not my fault that's right about when Bourque, Macinnis, Chelios and co started hitting the ages of 35+, or that Leetch went on decline and they were replaced by lesser players.



Quote:
With Lidstrom scoring more points and playing better defense? Sure.
Less points and near equal defense.

Quote:
So you keep saying - the actual results and scoring at the time beg to differ.


He was very good -- I'm certainly not denying that.


Why do the Norris voters at the time strongly disagree with you?
They don't. Nobody is denying Lidstrom has a longevity edge in award voting.

But his best was better than Lidstrom's best by no small margin.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 12:04 AM
  #116
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
You can not deny the league in the 70s was watered-down and there was an incredible lack of parity those years, going into the early 80s as well. There were A LOT of teams back then that sucked a lot worse than the Islanders have for the past few years.

It's not even close to today.

I believe it -- though obviously it's much less than what he averaged per game during those seasons -- so he must have been doing much better elsewhere huh?
It is quite tedious to go through Hockey_Summary_project to individually pull out each game in DAT files and then check on 2 separate pages for goals and assists if Potvin was involved in the scoring, but I will tough it out on my eyes and do a few more.

Potvin vs the 3 worst teams in 76-77:
Vs Colorado: 3 goals and 5 assists in 5 games
Vs Detroit: 1 goal and 0 assists in 4 games
Vs Washington: 1 goal and 1 Assist in 4 games.

Total 5 goals and 6 assists in 13 games against the worst 3 teams in the league.

In 77-78:
Vs Minnesota: 1 goal and 3 assists in 4 games
Vs Washington: 1 goal and 4 assists in 4 games
Vs StLouis: 3 goals and 3 assists in 4 games

Total 5 goals and 10 assists in 12 games against the worst 3 teams in the league.....

10 goals and 16 assists in 25 games, on pace for 32 goals and 83 points. not a whole lot different from his stats against Montreal/Philly when it comes down to it.

He was on pace for 35 goals and 83 points against the 2 elite best of the best defensive teams in the league over a 3 year period(And of all time)

Another big feather in Potvin's cap. Finals scoring against the elite best of the best in those years. 28 points in 24 finals games in his NHL career.

Pulling these stats out is so tedious because of the format of the files. Feel free to continue if you want. Everything is publically available at hockey_Summary_Project's Yahoo group. I am sure if you dig hard enough eventually you will find a team he completely killed every time he played. Every player has one of those. But from the looks of it, he was not padding his stats on the little teams.

Quote:
Now if Potvin did as well against them, doesn't it stand to reason he was more than capable of really taking advantage of the abundance of utter crappy teams at the time?
Stands to reason, but the statistics say otherwise. Against the 3 Absolute bottom feeding worst teams in the league for 2 years, his statistics were nearly the same as they were against the 2 absolute best defensive teams in the league.

Fortunately for us, if we want to check on Lidstrom's stats, his are much easier to view since Yahoo stats has complete game logs for each player since the late 90's all on 1 easy to read page for all active players. No hassle at all.

For instance, I looked quickly at Lidstrom's first Norris year, and against the top 6 teams in the league(NJD, OTT, PHI, COL, DAL, STL), he scored 14 points in 17 games, on pace for 66 points. While against the 6 worst teams(NYI, TBL, ATL, FLO, ANA, MIN), he scored 17 points in 13 games.

So Let's not pretend that working the little teams on the bottom is exclusive to era.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 07-23-2009 at 12:37 AM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 08:12 AM
  #117
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Wow... thanks for that site - and I can see how tedious it is to get info, but really appreciate it!

My point is really not to 'disparage' Potvin's points at the time, but to simply say Lidstrom would be more than capable of putting up those 90-95 points in the 70s (which is what several of his seasons have factored out to in 70s scoring) without drastically altering his game (though, depending upon his defensive pairing, he has been more than capable of jumping up into the play).

In 1978, with the Islanders at 111 pts and top 3 in the league, 6 of the 18 teams ( a full 33%) ended up with around 50% or less of the Islanders points:

59 Rockies
57 Canucks
57 Barons
53 Blues
48 Capitals
45 North Stars

The Red Wings sucked at the time as well, and ended up with only 41 pts the year before.

In the 90s and 00s, there are usually only 3-4 out of a full 30 teams that end up with only 50% of the points of the top teams -- typically around 10% of the teams, compared to 30-35% in the 70s.

So on average, day-in and day-out, players in the 90s and 00s were facing overall deeper and better competition.

Just like any great player of the 70s, Lidstrom would benefit from it, and I do not think my point projections for him are out of line at all -- 90-95 points, and Lidstrom's 00, 01, 06 and 08 seasons were all right there.

Potvin finished the 70s with seasons of 101, 98, 94, 80 and 76.
Lidstrom's top seasons fit into there quite nicely, maybe looking something like this (and I do think I am being conservative):
101 98 95 94 90 88 85 84 80 78 76

And then Lidstrom has a whole boatload of seasons at a similar level, with Potvin only one or two more in the even higher scoring 80s.

Potvin's peak years were a hair above Lidstrom's, and then Lidstrom completely takes over with the sheer amount of merely "great" years.

We're talking less than a 10% edge offensively, a good portion of which Lidstrom makes up for with slightly better defense.

I do see that as a "small" margin.

Plop Lidstrom into the 70s and 80s and he might have only 3-4 Norrises, but he *would* have a heck of a lot of runner-ups and top 3 finishes, on a more comparable level to Bourque, rather than Potvin.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 08:16 AM
  #118
NHLHammerbound*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 357
vCash: 500
Sidewayz
Quote:
...where would you guys place Denis Savard in the top all-time defensemen?
Purinton
Quote:
Hard to throw a forward in an all-time defensemen list.
Presumably, he meant SERGE Savard...

NHLHammerbound* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 11:24 AM
  #119
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Wow... thanks for that site - and I can see how tedious it is to get info, but really appreciate it!

My point is really not to 'disparage' Potvin's points at the time, but to simply say Lidstrom would be more than capable of putting up those 90-95 points in the 70s (which is what several of his seasons have factored out to in 70s scoring) without drastically altering his game (though, depending upon his defensive pairing, he has been more than capable of jumping up into the play).
No, Lidstrom would not! He might hit 90 points once or twice in his very best seasons, but would hover around:
70
48
65
31
78
67
69
67
85
83
69
72
45
94
72
82
Which is from the graph Hockey Outsider made regarding adjusting Lidstrom to the average from Bourque's era(Which was even higher scoring than Potvin's)

Quote:
In 1978, with the Islanders at 111 pts and top 3 in the league, 6 of the 18 teams ( a full 33%) ended up with around 50% or less of the Islanders points:

59 Rockies
57 Canucks
57 Barons
53 Blues
48 Capitals
45 North Stars

The Red Wings sucked at the time as well, and ended up with only 41 pts the year before.

In the 90s and 00s, there are usually only 3-4 out of a full 30 teams that end up with only 50% of the points of the top teams -- typically around 10% of the teams, compared to 30-35% in the 70s.
Yes, I get you. I understand where you are coming from and the faulty assumption you are making, but have I not just shown you that Potvin scored around the same amount against the elite best of the best that he did vs the bottom feeders during his prime?


Quote:
So on average, day-in and day-out, players in the 90s and 00s were facing overall deeper and better competition.

Just like any great player of the 70s, Lidstrom would benefit from it, and I do not think my point projections for him are out of line at all -- 90-95 points, and Lidstrom's 00, 01, 06 and 08 seasons were all right there.

Potvin finished the 70s with seasons of 101, 98, 94, 80 and 76.
Lidstrom's top seasons fit into there quite nicely, maybe looking something like this (and I do think I am being conservative):
101 98 95 94 90 88 85 84 80 78 76

And then Lidstrom has a whole boatload of seasons at a similar level, with Potvin only one or two more in the even higher scoring 80s.
No, I think the numbers I posted from Hockey outsider's Bourque Lidstrom debacle seem much more likely. Your numbers seem to have been adjusting from Lidstrom's worse PPG year to Potvin's highest instead of the average.

In any case, the adjusted stats thing is nice and all, but Potvin was a much more phenomenally dominating defenseman, and as I said before, Lidstrom's style of defense would need to be adjusted. Cutting angles would only work so well in the stand up goaltender era with those pads.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDhzhSLdmPE

Lidstrom would need to change up and attack the man much more aggressively like other defenders of the time, or that would happen much more often than it possibly can in the modern age with their gargantuan pads.



Quote:
Potvin's peak years were a hair above Lidstrom's, and then Lidstrom completely takes over with the sheer amount of merely "great" years.

We're talking less than a 10% edge offensively, a good portion of which Lidstrom makes up for with slightly better defense.
Potvin's peak was much better than 10% better. Over the coruse of his career, Lidstrom has been a top defensive defenseman of all time. But Potvin was too, and during his best years, he was probably equal to Lidstrom and he put the fear of god into anyone entering his zone, much like Stevens did for the devils, making them more tenative around him and more likely to cough up the puck. Offensively, I don't care what stats you pull up. Potvin was better by a bigger margin.




Quote:
Plop Lidstrom into the 70s and 80s and he might have only 3-4 Norrises, but he *would* have a heck of a lot of runner-ups and top 3 finishes, on a more comparable level to Bourque, rather than Potvin.
I think his resume would look much more like Potvin's to be honest. There were a lot of runner up's and 3rd place finishes for the Norris back then that were better than many of Lidstrom's Norris years.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 12:18 PM
  #120
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Before I look for it - do you by chance have a link for HO's post with the graph? Thanks!

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 12:24 PM
  #121
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Before I look for it - do you by chance have a link for HO's post with the graph? Thanks!
Not the graph, but the post in which he posted the information to the graph I have saved. Simply adjust all of Lidstrom's stats up 17%(Which was the offense level during Bourque's era)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Ray Bourque was on the ice for 1,457 even strength goals against in 1,612 regular season games, for a personal ES-GAA of 0.90.

Nicklas Lidstrom was on the ice for 958 even strength goals against in 1,252 regular season games, for a personal ES-GAA of 0.77.

However... there were an average of 5.85 goals per game when Lidstrom played and 6.86 goals per game when Bourque played. So Lidstrom played in an era that was 17% lower scoring*. Adjust his GAA by multiplying 0.77 * 1.17 = 0.90. According to this admittedly simple statistic, they were on the ice for exactly the same number of even-strength goals per game. (This confirms my intuition based on watching Lidstrom's entire career and well over a decade of Bourque's).

Comparing their personal GAAs is reasonable because they both received similar amounts of ice time (I'd estimate an average of 27 minutes per game). Lidstrom likely had the advantage of playing behind stronger defensive teams. My eyes tell me that their defensive play is similar (you can make an argument for either one, but it's close) and it's good to know that the stats confirm this.

* Note that to be fair to Lidstrom we should adjust his offense upwards by about 17% when compared to Bourque.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 01:03 PM
  #122
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,728
vCash: 500
Thanks -- and just to make those numbers up-to-date:

Scoring still averages 5.85, but with an additional 78 gms and 46 ESGA, Lidstrom comes down to an ES-GAA of .75, or .88 in Bourque's era.

But considering these two players had/have such long careers, it would be interesting to view it at a per year basis. Scoring ranged from 5.14 GPG to 7.25 throughout Lidstrom's career and from 5.27 GPG to 8.03 throughout Bourque's career. Lidstrom scored the bulk of his points on the lower end while Bourque scored most of his on the higher end.

I think I may post a comparison of Bourque, Lidstrom and Potvin with normalized scoring for all 3, on a year-to-year basis, assuming all three started playing the exact same year. Might at least be interesting.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 01:04 PM
  #123
Ward Cornell
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Three type lies...Lies...damn lies and statistics!

You never ever define greatness by stats!


btw...it's perfectly ok to have personal preferences!

Ward Cornell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-23-2009, 09:49 PM
  #124
sidewayzLEAFS
 
sidewayzLEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ontario, canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
i ahvenow changed my oriinal idea of harvey being better than shore and have placed shore at 2 with harvey at 3..
to me, bourque had that balnce between potvin and lidstrom and therefore i rank him higher at number 4...he had lidstrom longevity and potvin's dominance...

0rr
shore
harvey
bourque
potvin
coffey
lidstrom
robinson
kelly
park

(although, coffey and lidstrom are really close to me and i could literally be happy with placing them both ways)


HM's: fetisov, stevens, etc.

sidewayzLEAFS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-24-2009, 10:36 AM
  #125
sidewayzLEAFS
 
sidewayzLEAFS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: ontario, canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 155
vCash: 500
for some nice d-men pics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SLB3DujcTg

pretty good list with visuals

sidewayzLEAFS 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 03:11 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.