HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 2 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-09-2009, 11:55 AM
  #351
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
What makes you think Clancy will be on the list for voting next round?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lextune View Post
My thoughts exactly....

I for one would be utterly shocked if Clancy showed up next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
If Messier isn't up for the next round, I'll have to seriously question the sanity of this board. Many of us had him in our top 20, so I'm curious how low some of you had him since he wasn't among the top 25 in the original lists.

I predict that all four of the #19's will be up next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.

I really like Clancy, but i have to be realistic here : he shouldn't be much ahead of Earl Siebert, and I doubt somebody placed Siebert in their top-40.

I placed Messier low. Some would even say outrageously low. Now that I look at my list, i think it was a bit irrationnal. But then, a guy like Kharlamov probably had received some top-15 rankings, and that's IMO worst than where I've placed Messier.

I think next round will see the first NHA/WCHL/PCHL guys (discounting Eddie Shore, who did play in the Western Leagues but actually made his bigger splash in the NHL). It would actually be extremely nice those two being compared one to each other.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:21 PM
  #352
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
I really like Clancy, but i have to be realistic here : he shouldn't be much ahead of Earl Siebert, and I doubt somebody placed Siebert in their top-40.

I placed Messier low. Some would even say outrageously low. Now that I look at my list, i think it was a bit irrationnal. But then, a guy like Kharlamov probably had received some top-15 rankings, and that's IMO worst than where I've placed Messier.

I think next round will see the first NHA/WCHL/PCHL guys (discounting Eddie Shore, who did play in the Western Leagues but actually made his bigger splash in the NHL). It would actually be extremely nice those two being compared one to each other.
Once we get by the first round, everything is debatable. Its so hard to list 120 players in order that this second phase of voting can help make corrections.

Funny you mention Kharlamov and Messier. I had them 25 & 26 on my list. When they come up again, I'd have no problem changing my preference.

I had Clancey at 65. Is that irrational enough?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:28 PM
  #353
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,673
vCash: 500
Just looking back at my original list:

Dominik Hasek
Patrick Roy
Bobby Clarke
Phil Esposito
Stan Mikita
Bryan Trottier
Howie Morenz
Jacques Plante
Denis Potvin
Guy Lafleur

That was my 11-20. I really had no idea Red Kelly was that good. I always had him on level just behind Robinson, now I'm thinking of slotting him up there just ahead. I'm also one of the guys that had Messier way too low, considering where I had Trottier.

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:29 PM
  #354
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post

I had Clancey at 65. Is that irrational enough?
No. Lower than I did, but there's no problem with that. Actually, ranking him 65th makes much more sense than, let's say, 25th.

Funny that I mentionned Siebert in my post. I just looked at my list again and Clancy-Siebert are back to back.

As for Kharlamov, I do have him just behind a left winger, but a pure one unlike Messier.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 12:45 PM
  #355
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,490
vCash: 50
Clancy comes in at 66 on my original list....Siebert at 79. With only one Defenseman between them though, (Horton).

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:22 PM
  #356
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.
Dare I ask where you ranked Sprague Cleghorn then?

He was runner up for the Hart twice, and would certainly have been many more had the trophy existed before 23-24.

Another thing is, there are multiple players who have been top 5(Or close enough) in Hart voting 5 times, or close to it, but I consider none of them close to top 40 all time.

Case in Point. Joe Thornton.
I know you favor the "The league is much larger today, so 10th place is like 5th" sort of arguments, which I personally do not favor, but ill assume you use it equally amongst your distribution of that Criteria.

Thornton has a 4th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th Hart voting record in the modern league, and his career is still young, and I do not even consider him a top 120 player yet(And he has been a favorite of mine for years)

Does that mean you think he should be considered much higher? He is on the bubble of your criteria.

Rod Langway has 3 top 4 Hart finishes in an era infinitely more difficult for defensemen to get Hart consideration.

Ted Kennedy? Also just on the bubble of your criteria.

I am just trying to get a feel for what you are rating by?

Since you claim to be voting Clancy in Next round(Which will cover spots 20-35, but only induct 20-30), I have to question the logic. He is definitely not top 30. I question this particularly since you vehemently detracted Morenz as "Overrated" and ranked him 30 on your previous list, yet his Hart record is much better, and most people consider him a lock for top 15.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
What makes you think Clancy will be on the list for voting next round?

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:36 PM
  #357
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,422
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jekyll View Post
Dare I ask where you ranked Sprague Cleghorn then?

He was runner up for the Hart twice, and would certainly have been many more had the trophy existed before 23-24.

Another thing is, there are multiple players who have been top 5(Or close enough) in Hart voting 5 times, or close to it, but I consider none of them close to top 40 all time.

Case in Point. Joe Thornton.
I know you favor the "The league is much larger today, so 10th place is like 5th" sort of arguments, which I personally do not favor, but ill assume you use it equally amongst your distribution of that Criteria.

Thornton has a 4th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th Hart voting record in the modern league, and his career is still young, and I do not even consider him a top 120 player yet(And he has been a favorite of mine for years)

Does that mean you think he should be considered much higher? He is on the bubble of your criteria.

Rod Langway has 3 top 4 Hart finishes in an era infinitely more difficult for defensemen to get Hart consideration.

Ted Kennedy? Also just on the bubble of your criteria.

I am just trying to get a feel for what you are rating by?

Since you claim to be voting Clancy in Next round(Which will cover spots 20-35, but only induct 20-30), I have to question the logic. He is definitely not top 30. I question this particularly since you vehemently detracted Morenz as "Overrated" and ranked him 30 on your previous list, yet his Hart record is much better, and most people consider him a lock for top 15.
He's the second best defensemen of Eddie Shore's era. If eddie gets so much props for winning 4 hart trophies and being the best of his era, then the next best d-man should certainly be a top 25-35 player.

King Clancy would have 8 all star team selections if it existed before 1931.

Cleghorn was the best of his era, therefore he should make the top 50. I dont like the modern bias towards defensemen. Every top 10 d-man list that I see always has 7-8 post 67 d-man in it. Too much of a bias towards newer guys.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 01:53 PM
  #358
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
He's the second best defensemen of Eddie Shore's era. If eddie gets so much props for winning 4 hart trophies and being the best of his era, then the next best d-man should certainly be a top 25-35 player.
The vast difference between the two is that Shore was considered better than most of the forwards too, while Clancy, was on occasion, but not all the time like Shore.

Quote:
King Clancy would have 8 all star team selections if it existed before 1931.
8? Maybe, but That is a bit optimistic.

Quote:
Cleghorn was the best of his era, therefore he should make the top 50. I dont like the modern bias towards defensemen. Every top 10 d-man list that I see always has 7-8 post 67 d-man in it. Too much of a bias towards newer guys.
This statement is nearly the opposite of what you said a year ago.

A Year ago you were complaining about the bias against Modern players, and blasted us for over-favoring the older players.

Many would argue that Cyclone Taylor was the better(Although the situations differ. Rover some of the time and all that)

For the record, I do agree Cleghorn and Clancy were great. I rank Clancy as the 15th best defenseman of all time, and Cleghorn as 20th.

But I have a personal bias against the pre-consolidated era, and I do not rank some of those guys as high as you all. Matter of preference and differing in reasoning.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 02:08 PM
  #359
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
I'll be out most of the day, so I sent my vote already.

I hope and expect to be able to vote for Messier, Brodeur, Bossy, Kharlamov, and Cyclone Taylor next round. They are currently my top 5 not yet added.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 02:46 PM
  #360
Triffy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 336
vCash: 500
I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.

Triffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 02:52 PM
  #361
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,744
vCash: 500
Bernie Geoffrion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triffy View Post
I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.
Bernie Geoffrion will be discussed when he will be eligible for voting.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 03:05 PM
  #362
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Triffy View Post
I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.
Geoffrion always played second fiddle to first Richard and then Beliveau. While Messier got Hart consideration immediately after he escaped the shadow of Gretzky. But then are we punishing Geoffrion for playing for a good team? Geoffrion's playoff stats are outstanding (far better than Dickie Moore who does look more like a product of the dynasty).

But yeah, I'm starting to think I ranked Geoffrion too low on my original list. But I still don't have him up with Messier for whatever reason. I guess because Geoffrion was never counted on as a leader?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 04:10 PM
  #363
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Three times the MVP of the playoffs. Got to the semis or further eight times. Always had a sv% well above the league average in both the regular season and playoffs. Played for teams that took a lot of penalties, making his save percentages even more impressive. 40-19 in playoff overtime. What's not to like?
Roy is perhaps the most accomplished goalie of all time, but there's a difference between that and being the best. As it stands, I have no problem calling him #3 all-time, and might in fact vote that way.

Part of the reason why Roy isn't in my personal top-20 (I may vote him into this top-20, as two of my top-20's are not yet up for voting) is that I see a clear gap between him and Hasek. As far as watching the two play, there was never a question in my mind as to who was better at stopping the puck. Hasek's peak was more dominant, and there is a very good argument that he was the best player in the world for a few years in the late 90's. I don't think Roy could have ever been called that, and was only the second or third best player on his own team after going to Colorado IMO.

Roy went to the semis nine times, but six of those were with Colorado. During that span, the western conference basically consisted of three teams. Detroit, Dallas, and Colorado, who all enjoyed success by outspending everyone else. If Roy were placed onto any other team, he would most certainly not have had those deep playoff runs. In those six semi-finals, he beat Chris Osgood and Roman Turek, while losing to Mike Vernon, Ed Belfour twice, and Hasek. Interesting that he was unable to beat the HOF-caliber (or close to it) goalies in head-to-head matchups. Of course I'm not blaming him for those losses, but the team lost and he's a part of the team.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 04:31 PM
  #364
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,718
vCash: 500
My original list is quite different from what I'd do now, but, it's not as far off as expected.

My next ten to add, in alphabetical order.

Mike Bossy
Martin Brodeur
Chris Chelios
Bill Cook
Viacheslav Fetisov
Valeri Kharlamov
Newsy Lalonde
Brad Park
Cyclone Taylor
Brian Trottier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Triffy View Post
I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.
I only have 4 spots between them. But, longevity, physical play, defensive play and intangibles. I was probably too hard on Messier... But not nearly as hard as I was on Robinson, that was a mistake.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 05:14 PM
  #365
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,394
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Geoffrion always played second fiddle to first Richard and then Beliveau. While Messier got Hart consideration immediately after he escaped the shadow of Gretzky. But then are we punishing Geoffrion for playing for a good team? Geoffrion's playoff stats are outstanding (far better than Dickie Moore who does look more like a product of the dynasty).

But yeah, I'm starting to think I ranked Geoffrion too low on my original list. But I still don't have him up with Messier for whatever reason. I guess because Geoffrion was never counted on as a leader?
As I remember (can't access my list from here), Geoffrion and Messier were extremely close, and I can't even remember which one I had first.

Best guys not in?

Lalonde
Trottier
Bossy
Taylor

The first three are absolute locks to make my top-10 next round (if they're in), my 1st place player will be one of them as well, and they all would have made my top-10 (or top-11-to-20) this round.

And 6 other guys I don't remember exactly their placement
Amongst them
- Larry Robinson
- Stevie Y
- Milt Schmidt
- Joe Sakic


And two other ones. Probably Dryden and Bill Cook are probably the better guesses.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 06:52 PM
  #366
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,646
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Roy is perhaps the most accomplished goalie of all time, but there's a difference between that and being the best. As it stands, I have no problem calling him #3 all-time, and might in fact vote that way.

Part of the reason why Roy isn't in my personal top-20 (I may vote him into this top-20, as two of my top-20's are not yet up for voting) is that I see a clear gap between him and Hasek. As far as watching the two play, there was never a question in my mind as to who was better at stopping the puck. Hasek's peak was more dominant, and there is a very good argument that he was the best player in the world for a few years in the late 90's. I don't think Roy could have ever been called that, and was only the second or third best player on his own team after going to Colorado IMO.

Roy went to the semis nine times, but six of those were with Colorado. During that span, the western conference basically consisted of three teams. Detroit, Dallas, and Colorado, who all enjoyed success by outspending everyone else. If Roy were placed onto any other team, he would most certainly not have had those deep playoff runs. In those six semi-finals, he beat Chris Osgood and Roman Turek, while losing to Mike Vernon, Ed Belfour twice, and Hasek. Interesting that he was unable to beat the HOF-caliber (or close to it) goalies in head-to-head matchups. Of course I'm not blaming him for those losses, but the team lost and he's a part of the team.
How about the 2001 finals?

That was a 7 game series that his outplaying Brodeur badly resulted directly in the Avs winning the Cup.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 07:21 PM
  #367
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But yeah, I'm starting to think I ranked Geoffrion too low on my original list. But I still don't have him up with Messier for whatever reason. I guess because Geoffrion was never counted on as a leader?
I wouldn't say Geoffrion wasn't counted on as a leader. He was an alternate captain, and when Jean Beliveau was voted in as Montreal captain in 1961 Beliveau and Geoffrion were tied after the first round of voting. One player voting differently and Geoffrion would have been the team captain. Beliveau would have probably still become captain at some point, but how differently would we view Geoffrion if he had put in a few years as captain?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 07:48 PM
  #368
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,744
vCash: 500
Details

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I wouldn't say Geoffrion wasn't counted on as a leader. He was an alternate captain, and when Jean Beliveau was voted in as Montreal captain in 1961 Beliveau and Geoffrion were tied after the first round of voting. One player voting differently and Geoffrion would have been the team captain. Beliveau would have probably still become captain at some point, but how differently would we view Geoffrion if he had put in a few years as captain?
A few details are missing about the election of Jean Beliveau as captain of the Canadiens. They story may be read towards the bottom of this Red Fisher article:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=405560

At the time of the election Jean Beliveau had not risen to the rank of alternate captain. Also he was in a leg cast-knee injury, that would see 27 games pass before he could assume his role of captain.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 08:23 PM
  #369
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
On a request from foame, I'm posted pre-97 and post-97 even-strength on-ice numbers for Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, and MacInnis, in order to help assess the competition level for Nicklas Lidstrom. Unfortunately this is coming a little late for this vote, but here it is for the record.

Stat Glossary:

$ESGF/G - even-strength goals for per game, adjusted for scoring level. Higher is better.
$ESGA/G - even-strength goals against per game, adjusted for scoring level. Lower is better.
R-ON - Player's even-strength on-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA). Should be higher than R-OFF.
R-OFF - Player's even-strength off-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA).
XEV+/- - Players expected EV+/-, based on off-ice results.
EV+/- - Even-strength plus-minus, adjusted for scoring level.
AEV+/- - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus. =(EV+/-) - (XEV+/-). If you look at just one number, make it this one.
/82 - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus per season.
PP% - Percentage of team's PP goals for that the player was on the ice for.
SH% - Percentage of team's PP goals against that the player was on the ice for.
$PPP/G - Power play points per game, adjusted for PP scoring level.


Pre-1997
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 PP% SH% $PPP/G
Raymond Bourque 88-96 8.37 1.23 0.88 1.40 0.91 -49 241 290 35 0.90 0.62 0.50
Al MacInnis 88-96 8.00 1.12 0.76 1.47 1.18 71 236 165 21 0.86 0.40 0.54
Chris Chelios 88-96 8.41 1.08 0.77 1.40 1.23 93 213 120 14 0.78 0.60 0.37
Scott Stevens 88-96 8.48 1.14 0.89 1.28 1.18 80 171 91 11 0.56 0.54 0.25

Post-1997
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 PP% SH% $PPP/G
Al MacInnis 97-03 6.05 1.19 0.90 1.32 1.07 23 142 119 20 87% 46% 0.47
Chris Chelios 97-02 5.02 1.15 0.89 1.30 1.02 7 109 103 20 50% 61% 0.21
Scott Stevens 97-03 6.78 1.16 0.81 1.44 1.23 79 196 117 17 17% 74% 0.05
Raymond Bourque 97-01 4.68 1.03 0.97 1.06 0.98 -5 21 26 6 88% 63% 0.50

Bourque clearly dropped of from 1997 on. MacInnis, Chelios, and Stevens were all still playing at a high level, although Chelios and Stevens didn't have the power play responsibilities that they had earlier in their career.

And here are the 97-03 numbers for Lidstrom and a few other prominent defensemen.

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82 PP% SH% $PPP/G
Nicklas Lidstrom 97-03 6.87 1.19 0.93 1.28 1.21 79 149 70 10 77% 62% 0.49
Chris Pronger 97-03 5.37 1.28 0.86 1.49 1.02 7 186 178 33 67% 61% 0.37
Scott Niedermayer 97-03 6.33 1.08 0.84 1.30 1.30 90 129 39 6 57% 33% 0.26
Rob Blake 97-03 6.13 1.06 0.98 1.08 1.09 30 41 11 2 76% 54% 0.37
Sergei Gonchar 97-03 5.96 1.12 0.96 1.17 0.94 -21 79 100 17 74% 13% 0.35
Eric Desjardins 97-03 6.48 1.11 0.85 1.30 1.24 79 136 57 9 59% 44% 0.26
Brian Leetch 97-03 6.16 1.18 1.23 0.96 0.88 -52 -26 26 4 87% 52% 0.44

Lidstrom's even-strength numbers are surprisingly unimpressive for this time period. He didn't start putting up big plus-minuses relative to team until 2003 and on. Pronger was very strong competition during this time period when he was on the ice. Rob Blake, Sergei Gonchar, and Brian Leetch also placed in the Norris voting multiple times. Blake and Leetch's even-strength numbers are unimpressive, and Gonchar didn't play the penalty kill back then. Scott Niedermayer and Eric Desjardins probably don't quite belong in this group, as seen by their lesser roles on special teams.

I'd say that the group of Stevens, Chelios, and MacInnis largely maintained their effectiveness until late in their career, and the fact that they were still a presence in Norris voting shouldn't be a mark against the league's defensemen on it's own. However, the group of defensemen was weak at this time. Among other defensemen, Pronger, Blake, and Leetch were the only defensemen that played big minutes in all situations and provided real competition for Lidstrom in Norris voting. Gonchar didn't PK, and Desjardins and Niedermayer didn't log big special teams minutes on the PP or PK. I do think that if Pronger had played full seasons over this time period he would be considered much better in an all-time sense and would have provided stronger competition for Lidstrom.

But overall, I think Lidstrom has been a late bloomer who has really improved his game after the age of 30. It's true that he didn't stand out far above players like MacInnis, Chelios, Stevens, etc, when they were nearing 40, but I don't think Lidstrom was at his best then either. IMO Lidstrom has improved since he began winning Norrises and he would have won more had he played at that level in the 90s. It's not just the competition getting weaker.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-09-2009, 10:03 PM
  #370
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Ghana Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,478
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
How about the 2001 finals?

That was a 7 game series that his outplaying Brodeur badly resulted directly in the Avs winning the Cup.
I am aware of course, I was only using semi-final results in my previous post. I would contend though, that Brodeur's play was quite mediocre, while Roy's was just decent. It wasn't a goaltenders duel by any means. Roy gassed one game for Colorado by wandering out to play the puck and giving it away, allowing a New Jersey goal and subsequent victory (this was Game 2 or 4 I'm pretty sure). He did rebound and shut the Devils down in the final two games to capture the Cup though.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 12:41 AM
  #371
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I am aware of course, I was only using semi-final results in my previous post. I would contend though, that Brodeur's play was quite mediocre, while Roy's was just decent. It wasn't a goaltenders duel by any means. Roy gassed one game for Colorado by wandering out to play the puck and giving it away, allowing a New Jersey goal and subsequent victory (this was Game 2 or 4 I'm pretty sure). He did rebound and shut the Devils down in the final two games to capture the Cup though.
Roy was definitely better than "decent." He had one bad game, but his play in the other games in the finals is a huge reason he deservedly won the Smyth.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 09:50 AM
  #372
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I am aware of course, I was only using semi-final results in my previous post. I would contend though, that Brodeur's play was quite mediocre, while Roy's was just decent. It wasn't a goaltenders duel by any means. Roy gassed one game for Colorado by wandering out to play the puck and giving it away, allowing a New Jersey goal and subsequent victory (this was Game 2 or 4 I'm pretty sure). He did rebound and shut the Devils down in the final two games to capture the Cup though.
While Roy was indeed at fault on that particular goal, it's difficult to blame him for the loss considering that his team was outshot 35-12.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 12:28 PM
  #373
eltopinio
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
I've been a long time lurker on the HoH board and want to give props to everyone involved in this project. It has given me insight on a lot of players, although I wouldn't feel knowledgable enough to discuss a lot of the older ones.

I read mostly every post in this thread, but I did skip a few so forgive me if it's already been brought up but I'd like to say the following regarding the Lidstrom-Potvin debate:

Let's suppose I'm a fairly good hockey player that can be depended upon for contributing offensively to my team. I would certainly not shy away from going on Lidstrom's side. He will most definitely beat me, but I would keep coming and maybe at one point he would make that mistake that could give a scoring opportunity to my team. If I'm going on Potvin's side, I might not shy away at first, but once he nailed me hard I might play nervous around him. I might be the one prone to mistake and robbing my team of a scoring opportunity, because of the intimidation factor Potvin brings with him.

Obviously I'm not a fairly good hockey player, I'm an utterly terribad hockey player. Professional players might be more fearless than I'm ready to give them credit for. But it always seemed to me that some players where suddenly more "careful" when going on Scott Stevens's side for example.

I think it's fair to say that Lidstrom has accomplished more. He has the hardware, awesome longevity and durability all the while being an all-time great. But if we're talking about this big game where everything is on the line, I would take Potvin every single time. He just bring more to the team imo.

We can't quantify the intimidation factor, but I'm pretty sure it's counting for something on a team's "morale". Is it significant enough to get Potvin above Lidstrom, I would think that yes because they are very very close as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry if this was already brought up, but in any case cheers to everyone on this project.

eltopinio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 01:55 PM
  #374
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
No, in fact Montreal took fewer penalties. Their record in avoiding penalties from the mid seventies to the mid nineties is excellent, and is matched only by the Devils of the last 15 years.

Fewest powerplays against on average, 1985-86 to 1995
1. Montreal, 323
2. St. Louis, 351
3. Washington, 354
4. Boston, 355
League Average, 372

Montreal was also a strong defensive club, so Patrick Roy's years in Montreal came in a similar situation to Martin Brodeur in New Jersey, with a tight defensive team that took few penalties.
My bad.

Take a look at Roy's Colorado days. The Avs were frequently very high in PP opportunities against.

I didn't realize he had Brodeur-like shelter as a Hab.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-10-2009, 01:58 PM
  #375
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,993
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
My bad.

Take a look at Roy's Colorado days. The Avs were frequently very high in PP opportunities against.

I didn't realize he had Brodeur-like shelter as a Hab.
It makes sense. Jacque Lemaire and Larry Robinson basically brought the Canadien model to NJ and modified it slightly to account for the difference in personel.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   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 03:42 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.