HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

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

Round 2, Vote 2 (2009 update)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2009, 06:46 PM
  #151
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommygunn View Post
Just a note.. Taylor, Lalonde, and Nighbor should be in this round too, IMO..
Wow!

Not too long ago you were telling us you'd have Gainey ahead of Nighbor, and now you have Nighbor up in your top-25.

Nice flip!


-------------------

does anyone know where the voting results for last round were posted? I'm not finding them.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 06:52 PM
  #152
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
Canadian Hockey Data Bank

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I did not mean to imply that for posters here - my apologies. When I said "unanimously' I had the canadian hockey fan in general - many of whom would not even rate Hasek in the top 10 all-time. Hasek is simply not well liked in Canada.
Comes down to Canadian posters having a much greater hockey data bank of knowledge and experience. Simply the more that is seen the harder it is to be impressed by the sizzle. Just show me the steak, the sizzle has no value.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 06:54 PM
  #153
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Comes down to Canadian posters having a much greater hockey data bank of knowledge and experience. Simply the more that is seen the harder it is to be impressed by the sizzle. Just show me the steak, the sizzle has no value.
ok... I meant "most" posters here.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 06:57 PM
  #154
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
i think it is worth mentioning in the jagr vs lafleur debate that lafleur played in a relatively diluted period. WHA, rapid NHL expansion and before the influx of europeans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Since you do not specify, for reasons that do not matter, it seems that the +1087 bolded above is the goal differential during the regular season. In other words you are saying that the NET of goals for vs goals against for the Red Wings during Lidstroms career is +1087. Please acknowledge that this is so or clarify if this is not the case.

Thank you.
yes, +1087 is DRW's regular season goal differential during lidstrom's career. i thought that was clear, since i used the same pattern as i did for each season and for the '86-'91 period.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 07:34 PM
  #155
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i think it is worth mentioning in the jagr vs lafleur debate that lafleur played in a relatively diluted period. WHA, rapid NHL expansion and before the influx of europeans.
Yes, that is worthy of mentioning.

Is Lafleur just the Canadian Jagr, who played on a dynasty and burned out quicker?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 07:50 PM
  #156
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i think it is worth mentioning in the jagr vs lafleur debate that lafleur played in a relatively diluted period. WHA, rapid NHL expansion and before the influx of europeans.




yes, +1087 is DRW's regular season goal differential during lidstrom's career. i thought that was clear, since i used the same pattern as i did for each season and for the '86-'91 period.
So if we look at Ray Bourque during his career with the Bruins and the Avalanche we have a regular season goal differential of app +715 - 720 depending on the adjustment and round-off at the time of his trade to the Avalanche. On a much lower regular season goal differential Ray Bourque produced a much higher +/-, +528, while Lidstrom has produced a +409 +/- on a +1087 goal differential.

Let's introduce Scott Stevens into the discussion. The three teams he played on never had a negative regular season goal differential. Over the full life of Scott Stevens regular season career the teams he played on produced a regular season goal differential of +961 yet Scott Stevens produced a +393 on a +961 regular season goal differential.

So if we look at +/- against goal differential we see that during regular season play Raymond Bourque and Scott Stevens contributed more to their respective teams than Nicklas Lidstrom did.

Since you have a history of being against cup counting then we will limit the comparison to the regular season, arguing the point strictly as you defined it.

As for the Lafleur / Jagr comparison - which you do not support by stats. Take the first ten seasons of each players career.

Lafleur. scoring leader ranged 125 - 164pts, six different players inc one tie.

Jagr. scoring leader ranged from 96 - 161(70 during the short season).four different players, one tie. Fairly similar.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:19 PM
  #157
tommygunn
Registered User
 
tommygunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Wow!

Not too long ago you were telling us you'd have Gainey ahead of Nighbor, and now you have Nighbor up in your top-25.

Nice flip!
Yes.. and that was all sorted out in January in the '2009 Top 100 Update Preliminary Discussion Thread'.

Now, if we can only get you to recognize how great Gainey was..

tommygunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 08:48 PM
  #158
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,824
vCash: 500
Oh, I do, I'm just realistic about it

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 09:00 PM
  #159
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
Jacques Lemaire

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, that is worthy of mentioning.

Is Lafleur just the Canadian Jagr, who played on a dynasty and burned out quicker?
No just a coach - Jacques Lemaire who effectively told Guy Lafleur that you have gone from being a superstar with a +70 plus/minus to a very good player with a -14 plus/minus. Time to make certain changes in your game or leave. Guy Lafleur did not choose wisely.

Jaromir Jagr never ran into a strong coach or owner with backbone.

Sergei Fedorov and Steve Yzerman had the pleasure of meeting Scotty Bowman who effectively told them after Jacque Lemaire's Devils swept the Red Wings that their games had to change. Fortunately they choose wisely.

Hockey is still a very simple game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 09:49 PM
  #160
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post


How could FF accept you into HOH Top 100 project is beyond me.
He may not embrace the spirit of the project and he may be the most biased participant ever, but excluding differing opinions isn't what this project is about. Besides, I couldn't post his lovely Top 120 list if I excluded him and I'm sure once people see it there will be no doubt about his agendas and overall knowledge. After all, the best part of the project is everyone having to defend their lists when I post them after the voting is done. He'll have plenty of explaining to do for some of his rankings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Overlooking the contributions by Larry Murphy, Brendan Shanahan, Igor Larianov, Paul Coffey to the Red Wings or their Stanley Cups during the length of Lidstroms tenure.
Paul Coffey's greatest contribution to Detroit was being trade bait for Shanahan. Heck, he had a career revival in Detroit when he was paired with Lidstrom and look what happened after he was traded.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yzerman and Fedorov. Well Bowman managed to get both to forego individual stats and play for the sake of team play after the Devils with Jacques Lemaire coaching beat an individualistic Red Wings team 4-0 in the 1995 Stanley Cup finals with the Red Wings slowly falling apart as the series progressed. Each loss worse than the previous. 2-1, 4-2 in NJ then 5-2, 5-2 in Detroit.
Fedorov was always a defense-first player. Bowman didn't teach him that, the Soviet system taught him that. Centers were the primary defensive forwards under that system. Larionov was for Makarov and Krutov. Fedorov was for Bure and Mogilny. Bowman can be credited with many things, but making Fedorov play defense is definitely not one of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
But Lidstrom was NOT willing to take on physical responsibilities of the position. His choice but one that is fair game for analysis and criticism.
Basically your entire argument against Lidstrom (and your initial post about Hasek) is that results don't matter because they didn't do it the "right" way. So what if Lidstrom wins Norrises, Smythes, or All-Star spots. So what if Hasek wins some Vezinaz and Harts. They didn't do it the "right" way so they should be punished?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Bolded. Claim not supported by links


Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan View Post
Jacques Plante came back after a three year retirement and won the Vezina Trophy (w/Glenn Hall) in 1969 and led the Blues to the Stanley Cup Finals ... and then two years later at the age of 42 made the second All-Star team with the Leafs posting a league leading save percentage of .942, a mark that Hasek never matched in any season in his entire career.
Wasn't the Vezina is 1969 basically the equivalent of the modern Jennings Trophy still?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Comes down to Canadian posters having a much greater hockey data bank of knowledge and experience. Simply the more that is seen the harder it is to be impressed by the sizzle. Just show me the steak, the sizzle has no value.
Yes, clearly not a bigoted anti-American, anti-European statement at all. "I am Canadian therefore I must know more about hockey than you." Do you really feel that your country of origin makes you somehow more qualified or knowledgable than the non-Canadian participants here? Think very carefully before answering this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sergei Fedorov and Steve Yzerman had the pleasure of meeting Scotty Bowman who effectively told them after Jacque Lemaire's Devils swept the Red Wings that their games had to change. Fortunately they choose wisely.
Actually, Fedorov always played that style of game. Losing to the Devils didn't change anything. Losing to the Sharks next season was the flashpoint that made Yzerman fully buy into Bowman's system. Also don't kid yourself. Bowman wanted to trade Yzerman for Yashin but Mike Ilitch flat out told him "no". Yzerman in Detroit was bigger than Bowman and everyone, even Scotty, knew it. When the rumors came out that Bowman was looking to trade him he was booed louder than fans here boo Bettman. Bowman HAD to win over Yzerman to survive in Detroit. Yzerman didn't have to listen to Bowman unless he wanted to win. He did so finally he listened, but it took arguably the most embarrasing playoff flop in NHL history to finally do it.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 10:25 PM
  #161
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
80% APG Better

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Overlap: Taylor did not play pro hockey until the 1906 season, when he split the year between the Manitoba league and the IHL. He spent 1907 in the IHL and then finally joined the eastern syndicate in 1908 with Ottawa as a defenseman in the ECAHA. Russell Bowie played his final ECAHA season in that season. McGee played his final season two years before that.

Both were outstanding players but hockey changed a lot from that generation to Taylor/Malone/Lalonde's generation. The days of guys scoring 2-3 goals a game regularly were over.

So Taylor's career overlapped with McGee's for one season, but they were in different leagues. It overlapped with Bowie's for three seasons, only the last of which was in the same league. And he played 16 more seasons after that. So I would consider that a case of careers NOT overlapping. Wouldn't you? I'd say it's a concept that is clearly defined.

As for Taylor, as I understand it, you want me to prove that he was a dominant playmaker?

- In 1913 he tied for the league lead with 8.
- In 1914 he led with 15. Next best was Dubbie Kerr with 11, then Frank Patrick and Skinner Poulin with 9. He was just getting started...
- In 1915 he led with 22. MacKay and Dunderdale were the next-best, with 11 and 10.
- In 1916, he led with 13. Kerr had 12 and Patrick had 11.
- In 1917, he had 15, good for 3rd in the league, but dominant on a per-game level. On pace to 33. Stanley had 18 and Morris had 17.
- In 1918, he had 11, one behind Morris for the lead. Oatman had 10. (Taylor dominated this year with 32 goals, next best had 20)
- In 1919, he led in both goals and assists. His 13 assists topped MacKay's 9 and Morris' 8.
- In 1920, he played just 10 games but had 6 assists. This projects to 13, one behind Oatman's 14 and ahead of Harris' 10.

That's 8 straight years of being the best or second-best playmaker in the PCHA on a per-game level. Notice as well, that very few players are even mentioned multiple times above. Everyone had their moment as a #2 or #3 guy and then fell back into the pack, but Taylor was always the #1 guy.
Yawn.
Two plus goals per game
NHL
Joe Malone did it the first NHL season - 44 goals in 20 games.

NHA
Joe Malone, twice from memory with the Quebec Bulldogs 1912-13,1916-17 while Newsy Lalonde also did it 1909-10 in the.Marty Walsh 1909-10,1910-11seasons.Tommy Smith -1909-1910, 1912-1913, 1914-1915,Frank Nighbor 1916-17

ECAHA/ECHA
Marty Walsh 1907-08, 1908-09,Russell Bowie 1907-08

PCHA
Mickey Mackay 1914-15,

The measure for Taylor is 80% APG better. Other than 1915 you are not close. That he was the leading playmaker is not in dispute. That the league had a large flow thru of players while Taylor was a constant is not in dispute. But he was rarely 80% APG better.

Present the stats with out getting cute. Raw numbers.

As for overlap. Accepting your reasoning at face value.

The Hasek's Czech performances should not be considered since we are not considering Bowie's and McGee's seasons. Nice slippery slope that you chose. Cannot argue it both ways.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-04-2009 at 10:26 PM. Reason: typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 10:33 PM
  #162
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The Hasek's Czech performances should not be considered since we are not considering Bowie's and McGee's seasons. Nice slippery slope that you chose. Cannot argue it both ways.
You are smarter than this. Bowie and McGee aren't considered because they aren't really contemporaries of Taylor in this context of the assists/playmaker debate. Their accomplishments should be considered if you are arguing whether they are better overall players than Taylor. All professional accomplishments should be considered for all players. That includes pre-NHL, European, and International accomplishments.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 10:38 PM
  #163
TheDevilMadeMe
Mod Supervisor
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post


Yes, clearly not a bigoted anti-American, anti-European statement at all. "I am Canadian therefore I must know more about hockey than you." Do you really feel that your country of origin makes you somehow more qualified or knowledgable than the non-Canadian participants here? Think very carefully before answering this.
I wonder if he's actually going to actually answer this one. I really do hope he does.
Quote:

Actually, Fedorov always played that style of game. Losing to the Devils didn't change anything. Losing to the Sharks next season was the flashpoint that made Yzerman fully buy into Bowman's system. Also don't kid yourself. Bowman wanted to trade Yzerman for Yashin but Mike Ilitch flat out told him "no". Yzerman in Detroit was bigger than Bowman and everyone, even Scotty, knew it. When the rumors came out that Bowman was looking to trade him he was booed louder than fans here boo Bettman. Bowman HAD to win over Yzerman to survive in Detroit. Yzerman didn't have to listen to Bowman unless he wanted to win. He did so finally he listened, but it took arguably the most embarrasing playoff flop in NHL history to finally do it.
Didn't the Wings lose to the Sharks in 1994, the Devils in 1995, and the Avs in 1996 (after the Wings had the record breaking season)?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 11:34 PM
  #164
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,387
vCash: 500
Wow, tons of posts to sift through already here...

First off, some Cyclone Taylor debate going on here. I've been one of his biggest supporters around here, and was really hoping he'd be up for debate in round 2, but alas. Red Kelly makes for a great comparison. Both were elite level defenders for the first part of their career, and then enjoyed success at center. But while Kelly was merely a very good center, Taylor was utterly dominant, racking up several scoring titles. I'm probably one of the bigger Kelly boosters around here as well, but I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind him getting ranked well above Taylor, aside from pre-NHL accomplishments being (wrongly) discounted or not thoroughly researched (which is excusable, we're all here to learn).

GBC, your Lafleur-Esposito post echoes my sentiments from the last time we did this project. I really don't see why Lafleur should rank ahead of him. Peaks are similar, and Espo's longevity is superior by no small margin. Esposito's playmaking is underrated, he was not merely the triggerman for Orr. He has seven top-TWO finishes in assists, in addition to the six goal-scoring titles. The "Phil was a product of Bobby" argument is tiresome. Like you point out, he dominated the Summit Series without the sevices of number 4, and took a mediocre Rangers team to the final in the twilight of his career. He was injured in the 1973 playoffs, and the Bruins quickly faltered, with Orr producing a meagre two points in five games.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 11:36 PM
  #165
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
Your Points

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
He may not embrace the spirit of the project and he may be the most biased participant ever, but excluding differing opinions isn't what this project is about. Besides, I couldn't post his lovely Top 120 list if I excluded him and I'm sure once people see it there will be no doubt about his agendas and overall knowledge. After all, the best part of the project is everyone having to defend their lists when I post them after the voting is done. He'll have plenty of explaining to do for some of his rankings.



Paul Coffey's greatest contribution to Detroit was being trade bait for Shanahan. Heck, he had a career revival in Detroit when he was paired with Lidstrom and look what happened after he was traded.....



Fedorov was always a defense-first player. Bowman didn't teach him that, the Soviet system taught him that. Centers were the primary defensive forwards under that system. Larionov was for Makarov and Krutov. Fedorov was for Bure and Mogilny. Bowman can be credited with many things, but making Fedorov play defense is definitely not one of them.



Basically your entire argument against Lidstrom (and your initial post about Hasek) is that results don't matter because they didn't do it the "right" way. So what if Lidstrom wins Norrises, Smythes, or All-Star spots. So what if Hasek wins some Vezinaz and Harts. They didn't do it the "right" way so they should be punished?



Yes, clearly not a bigoted anti-American, anti-European statement at all. "I am Canadian therefore I must know more about hockey than you." Do you really feel that your country of origin makes you somehow more qualified or knowledgable than the non-Canadian participants here? Think very carefully before answering this.



Actually, Fedorov always played that style of game. Losing to the Devils didn't change anything. Losing to the Sharks next season was the flashpoint that made Yzerman fully buy into Bowman's system. Also don't kid yourself. Bowman wanted to trade Yzerman for Yashin but Mike Ilitch flat out told him "no". Yzerman in Detroit was bigger than Bowman and everyone, even Scotty, knew it. When the rumors came out that Bowman was looking to trade him he was booed louder than fans here boo Bettman. Bowman HAD to win over Yzerman to survive in Detroit. Yzerman didn't have to listen to Bowman unless he wanted to win. He did so finally he listened, but it took arguably the most embarrasing playoff flop in NHL history to finally do it.
With reserve to comment later.

Yes the the Soviet system featured the center as the primary defensive forward just like the Canadiens system did predating Bowman, Blake, and into the days of Dick Irvin Sr.

When Scotty Bowman coached the Canadiens the centers were the key defensive forwards. Jacques Lemaire, Doug Jarvis, Doug Riseborough, Pete Mahovlich, Henri Richard, centers, all fulfilled specific roles

Bowman had to find the middle ground with Fedorov between the Soviet system which was in tune with the larger ice surface and the updated version of the Canadiens approach to defense that Bowman had modified along the way. This Bowman and Fedorov accomplished.

Bowman wanted to trade players after a loss during the dynasty years in Montreal which is why Sam Pollock did not name him as GM when Sam Pollock retired.

My comment about having access to a Canadian data bank of knowledge and experiences is falsely misrepresented by your use of quotation marks.When I started playing organized hockey in the first half of the 1950's the community center equipment manager and some of the volunteers had hockey experience going back to the pre NHL era.In Montreal this meant exposure to the French and English appreciations of hockey, various media etc. As I progressed some of my coaches had played minor/junior/NHL hockey. By the late 1960's I had started coaching and scouting. One of the bonuses was travelling to the arenas with our old equipment manager - in his seventies and listening to him compare the young players and future greats to the old stars back to the NHA era. This continued well into the 1980's. The pleasure of hearing someone compare Wayne Gretzky to pre NHL stars while nuancing the rule and equipment changes has no substitute.

Luck of the draw. The Maurice Richard Arena with an Olympic Ice Surface was built in the early 1960's about a seven minute walk from our community center arena - small dinky undersized arena. So I had the chance to play and coach on various rink sizes. Familiar with the various nuances.

Travelling throughout Canada I have run into people with comparable or deeper experiences. Outside Canada - the USA, Europe, I have not been as fortunate.

If there are people with similar access to knowledge and experiences in other countries then they are equally or more favoured than I have been. if not so be it.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2009, 11:53 PM
  #166
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
He may not embrace the spirit of the project and he may be the most biased participant ever, but excluding differing opinions isn't what this project is about. Besides, I couldn't post his lovely Top 120 list if I excluded him and I'm sure once people see it there will be no doubt about his agendas and overall knowledge. After all, the best part of the project is everyone having to defend their lists when I post them after the voting is done. He'll have plenty of explaining to do for some of his rankings.






Yes, clearly not a bigoted anti-American, anti-European statement at all. "I am Canadian therefore I must know more about hockey than you." Do you really feel that your country of origin makes you somehow more qualified or knowledgable than the non-Canadian participants here? Think very carefully before answering this.


The rules 2, 3 and 5 you posted in the opening post don't apply to yourself I take it?

You're going to take someone to task about an anti American comment? That's interesting as there have been numerous times I felt like doing the same to you about your anti Canadian stance but have bit my tongue so to speak.

The ignorance shown to canadiens1958 in these threads is ridiculous. The snide little backhand comments. Incredibly immature. Generally his posts are presented with support from quotes or links which is more than most others do but people still manage to find ways to show their ignorance when responding. For example the Lidstrom post that had a youtube link. He stated his opinion and why he felt that way quite clearly and then provided a video EXAMPLE of what he was referring to. And what were several peoples response? "You're basing your position on one clip" "omg you must be kidding". I guess he should have provided links to what, several hundred examples?

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 12:02 AM
  #167
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
My comment about having access to a Canadian data bank of knowledge and experiences is falsely misrepresented by your use of quotation marks.When I started playing organized hockey in the first half of the 1950's the community center equipment manager and some of the volunteers had hockey experience going back to the pre NHL era.In Montreal this meant exposure to the French and English appreciations of hockey, various media etc. As I progressed some of my coaches had played minor/junior/NHL hockey. By the late 1960's I had started coaching and scouting. One of the bonuses was travelling to the arenas with our old equipment manager - in his seventies and listening to him compare the young players and future greats to the old stars back to the NHA era. This continued well into the 1980's. The pleasure of hearing someone compare Wayne Gretzky to pre NHL stars while nuancing the rule and equipment changes has no substitute.

Luck of the draw. The Maurice Richard Arena with an Olympic Ice Surface was built in the early 1960's about a seven minute walk from our community center arena - small dinky undersized arena. So I had the chance to play and coach on various rink sizes. Familiar with the various nuances.

Travelling throughout Canada I have run into people with comparable or deeper experiences. Outside Canada - the USA, Europe, I have not been as fortunate.

If there are people with similar access to knowledge and experiences in other countries then they are equally or more favoured than I have been. if not so be it.
Nice story. Kudos to you. Thing is around here that doesn't make you special. That pretty much puts you on par with most of us and a few steps below several others. Try to keep that in mind next time you make a condescending post where you come across as a parent trying to scold a silly child. You make some good points and you make some bad ones. The problem is you don't seem open to admitting that you might be wrong about some things and that stubborness has led to a general lack of respect given to others, which has resulted in a lack of respect being given to you. This really isn't a good situation moving forward.

To everyone, there is a basic etiquette that's been established from the previous project as well as the general posting base around here. I think some of us (myself included) have strayed a bit too far from it. It's time to step back, refocus, and move forward in the proper manner. Things are getting derailed for the wrong reasons right now.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 12:22 AM
  #168
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
The rules 2, 3 and 5 you posted in the opening post don't apply to yourself I take it?

You're going to take someone to task about an anti American comment? That's interesting as there have been numerous times I felt like doing the same to you about your anti Canadian stance but have bit my tongue so to speak.

The ignorance shown to canadiens1958 in these threads is ridiculous. The snide little backhand comments. Incredibly immature. Generally his posts are presented with support from quotes or links which is more than most others do but people still manage to find ways to show their ignorance when responding. For example the Lidstrom post that had a youtube link. He stated his opinion and why he felt that way quite clearly and then provided a video EXAMPLE of what he was referring to. And what were several peoples response? "You're basing your position on one clip" "omg you must be kidding". I guess he should have provided links to what, several hundred examples?
I'd love for you to show me some examples of an anti-Canadian bias I have, especially considering I don't even vote in the project. It's no secret that I'm a huge supporter of Gordie Howe, a Canadian. It's no secret that I'm a vocal critic of Eddie Shore, a Canadian. I'm on record saying that Bourque is better than Lidstrom. I'm on record saying that I think Kelly and Potvin are better. Is that an anti-Canadian stance, or do you mean anti-Canadien stance? I feel Believeau is better than Bobby Hull. I think Maurice Richard is better than Eddie Shore but not as good as Hull. If I was voting my Top 10 would be Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, Harvey, Believeau, Hull, Richard, Shore, Plante. Oh yes, Plante over Hasek. Does that shock you? I was convinced in the original list as I originally had Hasek higher. I don't think Roy is better. Does that make me anti-Canadian? Perhaps you get this impression because I've only spoken on a few points that I feel strongest about (Howe vs. Orr/Gretzky, Hasek vs. Roy). Am I talking up Ted Lindsay here? Probably, but if you look over the discussion from the first list you'll see I did it there too. I feel he's underrated. So do others. Does that make us anti-Canadian? Oh wait, these are ALL Canadians (sans Hasek)! But you know what, I'm sure you're right. I must have some deep-seated hatred for my brothers and sisters across the river that I'm clearly taking out on old, dead hockey players on a ranking list.

Now get off your high-horse and stop pretending that C1958 is some victim. He's brought much of this on himself. Several times in the Vote 1 thread he was asked to provide evidence or links of his wild claims and repeatedly failed. To his credit, he's gotten better but he still makes antagonizing remarks. Yes, he posted ONE video clip and stated his OPINION based on it. Very nice! Now back that opinion up with something CREDIBLE - ie player/coach/GM comments about how his soft play hurts him defensively as C1958 claims. The +/- argument he presented was interesting but ultimately severely flawed as pointed out by numerous posters. Instead of seeing that and admitting that maybe it was a bad metric, he defends it and calls differing evidence "smoke and mirrors" support. Somehow that's not a snide or condescending remark to just about everyone who disagrees with him? Come on Stonefly, you can't tell me that he hasn't been an active participant in creating much of the vitriolic commentary leveled towards him. Doesn't make it right, but he's not some innocent victim either.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 01:11 AM
  #169
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 11,287
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
The rules 2, 3 and 5 you posted in the opening post don't apply to yourself I take it?

You're going to take someone to task about an anti American comment? That's interesting as there have been numerous times I felt like doing the same to you about your anti Canadian stance but have bit my tongue so to speak.

The ignorance shown to canadiens1958 in these threads is ridiculous. The snide little backhand comments. Incredibly immature. Generally his posts are presented with support from quotes or links which is more than most others do but people still manage to find ways to show their ignorance when responding. For example the Lidstrom post that had a youtube link. He stated his opinion and why he felt that way quite clearly and then provided a video EXAMPLE of what he was referring to. And what were several peoples response? "You're basing your position on one clip" "omg you must be kidding". I guess he should have provided links to what, several hundred examples?
Just to illustrate my point in the previous post, I'll provide some examples of how he brings this upon himself:

Post #27
Notice the mocking tone of the initial sentence. Does that really seem like the appropriate responce to my question? I fail to see how the post he quoted could be viewed as an attack considering it was a legitimate question. Note he also failed to address the point that if you look over footage of any defenseman you'll find plenty of mistakes as well. Also, ONE YouTube clip does not mean that is a consistent flaw in a players game. I can link Bourque flubbing a puck at the blueline to Bure for a breakaway shorthanded goal but that doesn't mean Ray consistently had trouble handling the puck, does it?

Post #34
To most probably not a big deal. To me, who has already had to argue with him via PM about the voting procedures (something that should have been addressed long ago in the Top 100 Preliminary Thread) it's quite irritating. Was this an intentional attempt to rile me up? I choose to think it isn't.

Post #42
The introduction of the "smoke and mirrors" line. It will be seen again.

Post #46
Notice he titles his post Hilarious. Makes good points then clearly makes a statement meant to troll Reds4Life (an obvious Wings fan) re: Patrick Sharp spear.

Post #49
Ironically titled Smoke and Mirrors. Attacks one of the more respected and knowledgable posters here in Nalyd Psycho in a rather rude fashion. The quoted post certainly wasn't rude.

Post #55
Accuses Jungosi of "jigging" things to make Lidstrom look good. How could that be upsetting to anyone? The quoted post certainly doesn't attack him in any way.

Post #63
Lest you think I'm crazy in my claim that he's taking one YouTube clip as evidence of a consistent flaw, he admits as much here ("Lidstrom as evidenced by the Umberger video rarely does use his body in such a fashion."). His only evidence is still one single video plus his opinions. He has yet to provide anything from any other source agreeing with his opinion.

Post #71
Smoke and Mirror, Part 3

Post #152
"Comes down to Canadian posters having a much greater hockey data bank of knowledge and experience". Do I really need to say anything more?

He makes some great points. A good portion of his posts are rational, respectful, and insightful. The problem is he mixes in quite a few posts that seem designed, whether intentionally or accidentally, to denegrate other posters or incite emotional reactions. You'll notice that the attacking type posts in this thread didn't start until he had made several of the ones cited above. That's just for this thread. I could do through Vote 1 and provide many more examples. The problem isn't in his thought and opinions, it's in his delivery. I choose to think that he's not intentionally trying to incite conflict, but rather he just doesn't realize the effect some of his comments will have on people. As I said before, some of the comments directed towards him were not appropriate, but it's a two-way street. He's not an innocent bystander Stonefly.

FissionFire is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 01:20 AM
  #170
Howe Elbows 9
Registered User
 
Howe Elbows 9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 2,877
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So if we look at Ray Bourque during his career with the Bruins and the Avalanche we have a regular season goal differential of app +715 - 720 depending on the adjustment and round-off at the time of his trade to the Avalanche. On a much lower regular season goal differential Ray Bourque produced a much higher +/-, +528, while Lidstrom has produced a +409 +/- on a +1087 goal differential.

Let's introduce Scott Stevens into the discussion. The three teams he played on never had a negative regular season goal differential. Over the full life of Scott Stevens regular season career the teams he played on produced a regular season goal differential of +961 yet Scott Stevens produced a +393 on a +961 regular season goal differential.

So if we look at +/- against goal differential we see that during regular season play Raymond Bourque and Scott Stevens contributed more to their respective teams than Nicklas Lidstrom did.
I'm not surprised that if you look at this statistic this way, you come to this conclusion. The Red Wings have been great for a long period of time, and there are plenty of great players (Fedorov, etc.) who gets their piece of the pie as far as +/- is concorned. Bourque carried his team while Lidström has been one of many greats on his team, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

But what's keeping this from being really relevant is that you're comparing Lidström to Bourque and Stevens - and neither of those two is up for voting right now. How does Potvin fare against his contemporaries in this statistic?

Howe Elbows 9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 01:21 AM
  #171
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,723
vCash: 500
Let me remind everyone that this project's credibility is derived entirely from our documentation. Obviously we don't have any big names like The Hockey News' project, so our posts need to demonstrate that our participants are objective and knowledge. I realize that we're able to borrow a lot of arguments from the first edition of the Top 100 project; still, so far I think our discussions have been significantly less rigorous and insightful than last time. Allegations of racism, attributing team success solely to individuals, abuse of statistics (i.e. comparing raw numbers across eras with no adjustments), statements not supported by any evidence, and pointless emoticons add nothing to the project and, if anything, makes it seem amateurish. I truly think that this is the most knowledgeable group of hockey historians on the net -- but we really need to improve our documentation.

Before clicking submit, please ask yourself whether your post would demonstrate (to an independent observer following this discussion) that you're objective & fair, and knowledgeable about hockey statistics and strategy. Also, if you're going on a tangent (and it isn't related to the core of the project) please either start a new thread or communicate by private messages.

====

Here is some summarized data that many of you might not have access to. This isn't an argument for/against any player -- but it can be used to support your positions.

Hart trophy voting record

PlayerFirstSecondThirdFourthFifthTOTAL
Jagr141107
Lafleur211116
Clarke310105
Esposito221005
Hasek212005
Mikita210115
Roy011125
Hall001225
Morenz310004
Kelly011204
Sawchuk001214
Plante100012
Potvin010102
Lidstrom000101
Lindsay000101

Source: please refer to here for documentation regarding my data sources.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 08-05-2009 at 01:44 AM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 01:41 AM
  #172
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
If You Wish

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirtless Joe View Post
I'm not surprised that if you look at this statistic this way, you come to this conclusion. The Red Wings have been great for a long period of time, and there are plenty of great players (Fedorov, etc.) who gets their piece of the pie as far as +/- is concorned. Bourque carried his team while Lidström has been one of many greats on his team, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

But what's keeping this from being really relevant is that you're comparing Lidström to Bourque and Stevens - and neither of those two is up for voting right now. How does Potvin fare against his contemporaries in this statistic?
If you wish feel free to do the numbers for Potvin. and contribute to the data base.I did them for players that were contemporaries of Lidstrom to illustrate a point which you grasped.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 01:43 AM
  #173
TheDevilMadeMe
Mod Supervisor
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Wow, tons of posts to sift through already here...

First off, some Cyclone Taylor debate going on here. I've been one of his biggest supporters around here, and was really hoping he'd be up for debate in round 2, but alas. Red Kelly makes for a great comparison. Both were elite level defenders for the first part of their career, and then enjoyed success at center. But while Kelly was merely a very good center, Taylor was utterly dominant, racking up several scoring titles. I'm probably one of the bigger Kelly boosters around here as well, but I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind him getting ranked well above Taylor, aside from pre-NHL accomplishments being (wrongly) discounted or not thoroughly researched (which is excusable, we're all here to learn).

GBC, your Lafleur-Esposito post echoes my sentiments from the last time we did this project. I really don't see why Lafleur should rank ahead of him. Peaks are similar, and Espo's longevity is superior by no small margin. Esposito's playmaking is underrated, he was not merely the triggerman for Orr. He has seven top-TWO finishes in assists, in addition to the six goal-scoring titles. The "Phil was a product of Bobby" argument is tiresome. Like you point out, he dominated the Summit Series without the sevices of number 4, and took a mediocre Rangers team to the final in the twilight of his career. He was injured in the 1973 playoffs, and the Bruins quickly faltered, with Orr producing a meagre two points in five games.
Yeah, I'm pretty convinced now to have Esposito in my top 10 somewhere (with Jagr as #11). Lafleur ranks a bit above Esposito in my mind due to the fact that he was unstoppable in the playoffs during his peak. Esposito was obviously quite good in clutch situations, but Lafleur is one of the best ever in the playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 02:17 AM
  #174
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,324
vCash: 500
From My Perspective

Quote:
Originally Posted by FissionFire View Post
Just to illustrate my point in the previous post, I'll provide some examples of how he brings this upon himself:

Post #27
Notice the mocking tone of the initial sentence. Does that really seem like the appropriate responce to my question? I fail to see how the post he quoted could be viewed as an attack considering it was a legitimate question. Note he also failed to address the point that if you look over footage of any defenseman you'll find plenty of mistakes as well. Also, ONE YouTube clip does not mean that is a consistent flaw in a players game. I can link Bourque flubbing a puck at the blueline to Bure for a breakaway shorthanded goal but that doesn't mean Ray consistently had trouble handling the puck, does it?


Post #34
To most probably not a big deal. To me, who has already had to argue with him via PM about the voting procedures (something that should have been addressed long ago in the Top 100 Preliminary Thread) it's quite irritating. Was this an intentional attempt to rile me up? I choose to think it isn't.

Post #42
The introduction of the "smoke and mirrors" line. It will be seen again.

Post #46
Notice he titles his post Hilarious. Makes good points then clearly makes a statement meant to troll Reds4Life (an obvious Wings fan) re: Patrick Sharp spear.

Post #49
Ironically titled Smoke and Mirrors. Attacks one of the more respected and knowledgable posters here in Nalyd Psycho in a rather rude fashion. The quoted post certainly wasn't rude.

Post #55
Accuses Jungosi of "jigging" things to make Lidstrom look good. How could that be upsetting to anyone? The quoted post certainly doesn't attack him in any way.

Post #63
Lest you think I'm crazy in my claim that he's taking one YouTube clip as evidence of a consistent flaw, he admits as much here ("Lidstrom as evidenced by the Umberger video rarely does use his body in such a fashion."). His only evidence is still one single video plus his opinions. He has yet to provide anything from any other source agreeing with his opinion.

Post #71
Smoke and Mirror, Part 3

Post #152
"Comes down to Canadian posters having a much greater hockey data bank of knowledge and experience". Do I really need to say anything more?

He makes some great points. A good portion of his posts are rational, respectful, and insightful. The problem is he mixes in quite a few posts that seem designed, whether intentionally or accidentally, to denegrate other posters or incite emotional reactions. You'll notice that the attacking type posts in this thread didn't start until he had made several of the ones cited above. That's just for this thread. I could do through Vote 1 and provide many more examples. The problem isn't in his thought and opinions, it's in his delivery. I choose to think that he's not intentionally trying to incite conflict, but rather he just doesn't realize the effect some of his comments will have on people. As I said before, some of the comments directed towards him were not appropriate, but it's a two-way street. He's not an innocent bystander Stonefly.
There is a major issue here.

Will illustrate with your comment about my post # 27 bolded above.
made over 24 hours ago. Basically prior to the post and since your question where the answer did not meet your approval you had ample time and opportunity to find at least one video clip that showed Lidstrom using his physicality to check opposing forwards and prevent a goal. Did you or any Lidstrom supporters find or provide any such video clips? As I type this no one has But the keystrokes and attacks on me just keep coming.

As for the teaching aid analogy. Having coached hockey to pre-teens, one of the best teaching aids is a visual presentation showing them that even the best have moments when things go wrong. Likewise the video shows that even the best can be beaten.
The clip has great teaching value.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 02:23 AM
  #175
Pear Juice
Registered User
 
Pear Juice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gothenburg, SWE
Country: Sweden
Posts: 801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonefly View Post
The ignorance shown to canadiens1958 in these threads is ridiculous. The snide little backhand comments. Incredibly immature. Generally his posts are presented with support from quotes or links which is more than most others do but people still manage to find ways to show their ignorance when responding. For example the Lidstrom post that had a youtube link. He stated his opinion and why he felt that way quite clearly and then provided a video EXAMPLE of what he was referring to. And what were several peoples response? "You're basing your position on one clip" "omg you must be kidding". I guess he should have provided links to what, several hundred examples?
Considering his only defense on his position is claiming that everybody else uses "smoke and mirrors" statistics I'd say he's got the response that could be expected.

Anyhow, here's the case on Nicklas Lidström.

- He has been selected 9 times to the first all-star team and once to the second all-star team.
- He has 6 Norris trophies, 4 Stanley Cups and 1 Conn Smythe trophy.
- He's a good clutch performer (see Conn Smythe playoffs or the 2006 Olympics final where he scored the GWG with 2 minutes left in the 3rd.).
- He's a proven leader at the highest level. (Captain of a Stanley Cup Winner).
- He's an ironman, among the least injured players, having missed only about 30 games in 17 seasons.
- He's very rarely in the penalty box, slightly more so since the lockout but still barely one minor penalty every 2nd game.
- He is an offensively gifted defenseman as evidenced by his 9 top 10 points for defensemen (1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th), 13 times top 10 in goals for overall (1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 5th, 8th, 9th) and he contributes alot on the Power Play evidenced by his season rankings in Power Play Goals For overall (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 8th, 9th)
- He is internationally successful, being a member of the exclusive triple gold club (Stanley Cup, Olympic Gold and WHC gold)
- He's repeatedly quoted as being close to a complete player who very rarely makes mistakes by people such as Igor Larionov, Scotty Bowman and Swedish announcers Arne Hegerfors and Calle Johansson (former Capitals defenseman).

All stats available at: http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lidstni01.html or http://www.nhl.com. Quotes available in an earlier post.

Had Lidström played the body as effectively as he plays the positional game and the poke check he would have been the text book example of a perfect hockey defenseman. I don't rank him high despite his lack of physical edge. I rate him low due to his lack of it.

Side note about the World Championships. Before the 90s the WHC was the greatest prize you could win in hockey in Europe. The Canadians might not've cared much about it, but over here it mattered. In 1987 when Sweden won their first Gold Medal in 25 years against the impossible Soviet team the entire team became national heroes. Håkan Loob went against directions he had gotten from Calgary just to play in that tournament. With the flux of players to the NHL, and NHL not allowing their players to join in the WHC the WHC lost its status as it no longer contained the best players of the respective countries. Sadly, the WHC is but a shadow of what it once was.

Pear Juice 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 02:29 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

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