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
08-05-2009, 02:12 PM
  #201
Pear Juice
Registered User
 
Pear Juice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Gothenburg, SWE
Country: Sweden
Posts: 807
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
One of these players is not like the others. That would be Ted Lindsay. It's hard to fault Lidstrom and Potvin for not getting Hart consideration, since they are defensemen. But you would expect a forward who we are going to put into the top 20 players of all time to have a better Hart record than a single fourth place finish.

Lindsay "played the game the way it was meant to be played," which he deservedly gets some bonus points for, but I think we are giving him too much for it if we put him in the Top 20.

_____

The 50s Red Wings seem to be overrepresented in last year's Top 100 compared to other dynasties:



http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=17475922

Gordie Howe was far and away the best player on the team. Red Kelly performed at an elite level outside the dynasty years AND beat out Lindsay for Hart consideration when they were on the same team. So I think they were ranked correctly (actually I have Howe at #2 but close enough).

Ted Lindsay and Terry Sawchuk were important superstar key players on the dynasty, but they dropped off dramatically after they left the team. So I can't help but think they may have been rated too high last time.

Sawchuk is traditionally ranked high because of two things: his insane peak and his career accumulative records. Well, his wins record already fell to Roy and Brodeur and his shutouts record will probably be beaten by Brodeur next year. So his career accumulative records should no longer be a real factor. So you are left with his insane five year peak, followed by a mediocre 10 years. Is a 5 year dominant stretch (no doubt helped by playing on a dynasty team) enough to rank Sawchuk in the Top 20? Not for me. He's a large step behind the Big 3 goalies, and should be one of the Next 3 along with Hall and Brodeur in the 21-30 range.

As for Ted Lindsay, I put him behind Sawchuk. One single 4th place Hart finish as a forward (a significantly worse record than all three of his teammates up for voting in this round) tells me he is not a Top 20 player of all time. At least Sawchuk has an argument for best peak of all time among goalies (as short as it was and as steep as the decline was).

What the 97-08 Red Wings have done in a 30 team league is arguably as impressive as what the 50s Red Wings did in a 6 team league, and I think it would be insane to rank 4 players from the 50s Wings over the best and most consistent player of the last 10 years - a guy who captained the 2008 team to the Cup with a completely different group of players from the 97, 98, and 02 teams.
Ted Lindsay is a very likable player. The little guy who did what he could, and was very good at it to boot. Add to this his contributions to the game off the ice and you get someone who's easy to take to your heart despite not having the most impressive hardware shelf. Make no mistake, emotional contribution is certainly a factor when ranking players in an all-time context. I'm not saying it is wrong, rather that it's hard to ignore.

However, I hear he was a quite dirty player, using alot of elbows and similar methods. Knees? Was he any more so than the rest of the 50s stars? How would you guys compare Gordie Howe's physical game to that of Ted Lindsay? Was he nicknamed 'Terrible Ted' because he was physical or downright dirty in line with the rest of the stars despite his length, or because he actually was the nastiest bloke around?

Those of you who know my opinion know that I don't like downright dirty play. I guess me being a Swede plays into it, but I just can't get away from the images from 1972 when I hear of Bobby Clarke. I instantly get pictures of 1977 WHC when I hear of Phil Esposito. I understand and respect those (most people actually) who think that dirty play is the consequence of playing on the edge with an unquenchable will to win at all costs, but it's just not my piece of pie.

Pear Juice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 02:28 PM
  #202
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
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.
Not sure where Hasek's Czech league performances entered this discussion, or how they relate to Bowie or McGee. :scratchhead:

As for Taylor playing in the days of 2+ GPG.... you can't reasonably count instances of this happening when he was still a defenseman now, can you? He can't bloody well be expected to compare to those guys in terms of offensive numbers. Using just his days as a forward/rover, you're left with MacKay, Nighbor, Smith, and Malone once each. That's not really an impressive display of 2+ GPG averages being commonplace.

It will take me some time to compile career PCHA numbers for some selected players, but sure, why not. I already showed you Taylor was 1st/2nd every year, and everyone who challenged him did so once, maybe twice. So logically you should see that Taylor is going to dominate the field in this category, but since you asked.....

(one hour later)

All-time PCHA assist leaders

Name Games Assists GPG
Taylor 130 104 0.80
Harris 252 90 0.36
MacKay 192 82 0.43
Oatman 195 81 0.42
Morris 167 76 0.46
Dunderdale 241 60 0.25
L.Cook 223 60 0.27
Walker 186 58 0.31
L.Patrick 142 55 0.39
Foyston 202 53 0.26
Rowe 257 51 0.20
Fredrickson 105 46 0.44

Out of the top-12, Taylor leads with 0.80 APG. The next-best is Bernie Morris, with 0.44 APG. 0.80/0.44 = 1.818. So Taylor has 82% more APG than the next best PCHA playmaker. Any questions?

He's also 2nd all-time in PCHA goals but it took him half as many games as Dunderdale. It's generally accepted that Malone and Lalonde were better than him at goalscoring though.

(VI - take note. Eddie Oatman is 4th all-time in PCHA assists, and 5th per-game, not significantly behind anyone except Taylor, but well ahead of Dunderdale, Harris, Walker, and Foyston, three of whom are in the hall)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Sawchuk is traditionally ranked high because of two things: his insane peak and his career accumulative records. Well, his wins record already fell to Roy and Brodeur and his shutouts record will probably be beaten by Brodeur next year. So his career accumulative records should no longer be a real factor. So you are left with his insane five year peak, followed by a mediocre 10 years. Is a 5 year dominant stretch (no doubt helped by playing on a dynasty team) enough to rank Sawchuk in the Top 20? Not for me. He's a large step behind the Big 3 goalies, and should be one of the Next 3 along with Hall and Brodeur in the 21-30 range.
.
Well, except for the Brodeur part, great post! There should be a sizeable gap between the big three and the next guys. The best thing Sawchuk has going for him is contemporary opinion, but I'm not sure where they got that because sv%, all-star teams, and playoff performances don't really seem to agree.

Before anyone jumps on me for sv%, consider that the consensus best goalie of each generation of the sv% era - Dryden, Roy, Hasek - all coincidentally had, by far, the best sv% of their time. It's not the be-all-end-all, but the two are certainly closely linked. And Plante and Hall have Sawchuk handily beaten in sv%.


Quote:
Originally Posted by poise View Post
I must respectfully disagree. Paul Coffey's impact on the Red Wings is usually one of the most underrated aspect of his career, as he is oft maligned for his falling out with Scotty Bowman in 1996. People will bring up the Defense issue, but it must be noted that Bowman had many good Defensive Players in his doghouse, Shawn Burr and Steve Yzerman (who I have argued played quite good Defense in his Offensive peak based on first hand accounts at the time) being examples early on, and even Sergei Fedorov later on. I believe his criticism of these Players, Coffey included, had more to do with not buying into the exact system Bowman wanted rather than their actual Defensive play and ability. On top of that, there were just Players that Bowman flat out did not like (read some of his comments on Burr and Dallas Drake, recall how he called Yzerman a "****** prima donna").

Lastly, I believe it is factually incorrect to say that Coffey had a career revival by being paired with Nick Lidstrom, rather I would say that the opposite is in fact true. Lidstrom after his remarkable rookie season, struggled magnificently for the first half of the 1992-1993 campaign. He turned it around right after Coffey was traded to the Red Wings...

There's no doubt about it that Lidstrom in 1995 was very helpful to Coffey's play, but there's also no doubt the impact Paul Coffey had on the development of Nick Lidstrom.

It has to be remembered how good Coffey was in the Playoffs with Detroit. Usually, the impression is that Coffey was what was wrong with Detroit, and this opinion is based on the injured Coffey in the 1995 Finals and the own goal in the 1996 series against Colorado. However, what's forgotten was how good Coffey was in the series before those two. What's forgotten was how Coffey was Detroit's best Player in the 1993 Quarterfinals (he got Yzerman and Ciccarelli going) and how much they missed him in that pivotal Game 7.
I watched a vintage game not too long ago from 1983, and then a couple of classic series from 1995 and 1996, and it is incredible watching the guy rush the puck. He was just as good at it over a decade later.


Last edited by seventieslord: 08-05-2009 at 02:38 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 03:10 PM
  #203
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Clarity

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Not sure where Hasek's Czech league performances entered this discussion, or how they relate to Bowie or McGee. :scratchhead:

As for Taylor playing in the days of 2+ GPG.... you can't reasonably count instances of this happening when he was still a defenseman now, can you? He can't bloody well be expected to compare to those guys in terms of offensive numbers. Using just his days as a forward/rover, you're left with MacKay, Nighbor, Smith, and Malone once each. That's not really an impressive display of 2+ GPG averages being commonplace.

It will take me some time to compile career PCHA numbers for some selected players, but sure, why not. I already showed you Taylor was 1st/2nd every year, and everyone who challenged him did so once, maybe twice. So logically you should see that Taylor is going to dominate the field in this category, but since you asked.....

(one hour later)

All-time PCHA assist leaders

Name Games Assists GPG
Taylor 130 104 0.80
Harris 252 90 0.36
MacKay 192 82 0.43
Oatman 195 81 0.42
Morris 167 76 0.46
Dunderdale 241 60 0.25
L.Cook 223 60 0.27
Walker 186 58 0.31
L.Patrick 142 55 0.39
Foyston 202 53 0.26
Rowe 257 51 0.20
Fredrickson 105 46 0.44

Out of the top-12, Taylor leads with 0.80 APG. The next-best is Bernie Morris, with 0.44 APG. 0.80/0.44 = 1.818. So Taylor has 82% more APG than the next best PCHA playmaker. Any questions?

He's also 2nd all-time in PCHA goals but it took him half as many games as Dunderdale. It's generally accepted that Malone and Lalonde were better than him at goalscoring though.

(VI - take note. Eddie Oatman is 4th all-time in PCHA assists, and 5th per-game, not significantly behind anyone except Taylor, but well ahead of Dunderdale, Harris, Walker, and Foyston, three of whom are in the hall)



Well, except for the Brodeur part, great post! There should be a sizeable gap between the big three and the next guys. The best thing Sawchuk has going for him is contemporary opinion, but I'm not sure where they got that because sv%, all-star teams, and playoff performances don't really seem to agree.

Before anyone jumps on me for sv%, consider that the consensus best goalie of each generation of the sv% era - Dryden, Roy, Hasek - all coincidentally had, by far, the best sv% of their time. It's not the be-all-end-all, but the two are certainly closely linked. And Plante and Hall have Sawchuk handily beaten in sv%.




I watched a vintage game not too long ago from 1983, and then a couple of classic series from 1995 and 1996, and it is incredible watching the guy rush the puck. He was just as good at it over a decade later.
2+ GPG simply happened when it happened. Fact independent of Taylor.

Taylor APG = .80 Morris APG = .46 per your table not .44
.80 / .46 = 1.739 = 73.9% not 80% or 81.8% so my extrapolations were fairly good.

This avoids the basic issue which is why get cute? Simply state that Cyclone Taylor was the seminal, innovative playmaker who led the league x out of y years and we all agree, save keystrokes, bandwidth and live happily ever after.

As for SV% ask the question not from the standpoint of the best goalies but from the standpoint of those who did not make it. Jamie Storr had some very attractive SV% numbers in the NHL. Well over .900. What went wrong? It wasn't injury, lack of effort, personal issues, etc.

Hasek Czech, Bowie, McGee, 2+ GPG either we systematically agree to include data or not. No of this selective inclusion.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 03:12 PM
  #204
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,962
vCash: 500
There's been some discussion about plus-minus relative to team. I've created a team-adjusted plus-minus statistic, and I'll post the numbers for post-1968 skaters here. More about the calculation of this stat and numbers for other players can be found here.

I've broken each player's career up into three or four sections to show the numbers, as there is too much random variation in single season numbers and career numbers flatten everything out and don't show off a players peak or prime sufficiently. Also, I've included all the components of the team-adjusted plus-minus, instead of just the final number. I personally prefer to look at the components, as I'm not a fan of one single number, but I've provided both here.

The usual caveats apply - regular season and even-strength only.

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.


Bobby Clarke
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82
Bobby Clarke 70-71 2.0 0.71 0.61 1.16 0.86 -11 16 27 14
Bobby Clarke 72-78 6.9 1.01 0.43 2.31 1.22 56 321 265 39
Bobby Clarke 79-84 5.6 0.77 0.50 1.56 1.30 54 128 74 13
Bobby Clarke 70-84 14.5 0.88 0.48 1.81 1.19 99 466 366 25

The numbers show Bobby Clarke to be an all-time great defensive forward, almost certainly the best since 1968 when plus-minus has been tracked, and probably the greatest of all time. This thread has some stats that show how impressive his defensive numbers were. Among others, he was on the ice for fewer than 20 EV goals against in both 1975 and 1976. By my calculations, his career even-strength goals against per game (adjusted for scoring level) are almost 20% lower than any other scoring line player. His peak even-strength goals against per game are over 50% lower than any other scoring line player (his linemates excepted).

Granted, with his offensive resume he almost needs to be the greatest defensive forward of all time to get a top 10 spot in this vote, but I think he deserves it.

His special teams contributions are very good also. He wasn't anything special on the power play compared to the rest of this group, but he's in the conversation for best penalty killing forward ever.

Phil Esposito
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82
Phil Esposito 64-67 Not Available
Phil Esposito 68-72 4.9 1.44 0.78 1.83 1.34 92 265 173 35
Phil Esposito 73-75 3.0 1.30 0.98 1.33 1.53 82 80 -2 -1
Phil Esposito 76-81 5.4 0.81 1.00 0.81 0.98 -7 -84 -78 -14
Phil Esposito 68-81 13.4 1.15 0.91 1.26 1.21 168 261 93 7

Phil Esposito has a funny career shape, and an examination of his production on the power play vs even strength is revealing. He's often considered to have been an underachiever in Chicago, but much of this was due to the fact that he was stuck behind Mikita and didn't get playing time on the first unit PP.

In 1964-65 he was tied with Gordie Howe for fourth in even-strength scoring. In 1965-66 he was tied for ninth in EV scoring, one point ahead of Mikita. In 1966-67 he was third in EV scoring.

Once he went to Boston his career took off, as he turned out to be a great power play producer. He was also a dominant even-strength player for five years from 1968-72, if not on the level of teammate Bobby Orr. However, his great power play performance masked a decline in effectiveness in the years 1973-75, as Boston was in fact better without him on the ice at even strength.

After being traded to New York, his slide continued, and he wasn't able to be an effective top line centre at evens any longer. He was productive on the power play right to the end, as his production became a mirror image of his Chicago days.

If we took Esposito's power play numbers at face value, he'd probably be one of the five greatest power play scorers ever. However, there is a question about how much he benefited from playing with Orr on the power play.

Jaromir Jagr
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82
Jaromir Jagr 91-94 3.8 1.04 0.81 1.28 1.07 13 71 59 15
Jaromir Jagr 95-01 6.5 1.50 1.01 1.50 0.92 -37 264 301 47
Jaromir Jagr 02-04 2.7 1.13 1.06 1.06 0.89 -19 14 33 12
Jaromir Jagr 06-08 3.0 1.09 0.68 1.61 0.95 -8 102 109 36
Jaromir Jagr 91-08 15.9 1.25 0.91 1.38 0.95 -51 451 502 32

Jagr's even-strength numbers are excellent, considering he played with sub-par linemates and weak defence/goaltending for much of his career. He has a phenomonal seven year peak from 1995 to 2001, and also a late-career renaissance in New York. Even outside of those years he was not a liability, even if he didn't always meet expectations.

Along with Lafleur, he probably has the weakest contribution on special teams of this group, as he rarely killed penalties and was more of an even-strength scorer than a power play scorer.

Guy Lafleur
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82
Guy Lafleur 72-74 2.8 0.87 0.60 1.46 1.44 42 62 21 7
Guy Lafleur 75-80 5.8 1.47 0.66 2.25 1.53 149 387 238 41
Guy Lafleur 81-85 3.6 0.83 0.64 1.29 1.28 37 55 17 5
Guy Lafleur 89-91 2.1 0.58 0.63 0.92 0.74 -22 -9 13 6
Guy Lafleur 72-91 14.1 1.07 0.64 1.67 1.35 206 496 289 20

Guy Lafleur and Jaromir Jagr have a lot of similarities. Both provided only offence, had a dominant six or seven year peak, their offence skewed more towards even-strength than the power play, and both failed to meet expectations outside of their peaks.

Differences: Lafleur had a far better supporting cast in every way, except for the power play at times. Jagr played in a tougher league that didn't compete with the WHA and included all Europeans. Jagr's peak is longer and he has more outside of his peak; in fact Lafleur provided almost nothing outside of six years. Lafleur has a significant edge in playoff success.

Lafleur, like Jagr, provided less than the others in the group on special teams.

Nicklas Lidstrom

Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82
Nicklas Lidstrom 92-97 5.8 1.15 0.80 1.44 1.37 103 168 65 11
Nicklas Lidstrom 98-02 4.9 1.20 0.97 1.23 1.19 53 90 37 7
Nicklas Lidstrom 03-09 5.8 1.24 0.75 1.65 1.28 83 232 149 26
Nicklas Lidstrom 92-09 16.6 1.19 0.83 1.43 1.28 239 490 250 15

Lidstrom is renowned for his consistency, but these numbers suggest that he stepped up his game in 2002-03. Before that time, his even-strength results were barely better than his teammates. Since then, he has been far better.

However, few defencemen have consistently outperformed their teammates at even-strength in recent years - possibly because coaches have leveraged their best defencemen to take defensive zone faceoffs and play against the other teams best lines. If that is the case, than Lidstrom may be facing a higher degree of difficulty than Potvin, for example.

Lidstrom is also one of the greatest penalty killing defencemen ever. Detroit has had a penalty kill that's among the best in the league for almost Lidstrom's whole career, without having a great goalie or even a good goalie for much of that time. The one constant has been Lidstrom playing big minutes back there.

Denis Potvin
Player Year Seasons $ESGF/G $ESGA/G R-ON R-OFF XEV+/- EV+/- AEV+/- /82
Denis Potvin 74-76 2.9 1.07 0.95 1.12 1.15 23 28 5 2
Denis Potvin 77-79 2.9 1.48 0.80 1.85 1.46 71 162 91 31
Denis Potvin 80-86 5.8 1.16 0.73 1.59 1.19 54 205 151 26
Denis Potvin 87-88 1.6 0.89 0.70 1.27 1.10 7 25 19 11
Denis Potvin 74-88 13.3 1.18 0.79 1.49 1.23 156 420 265 20

Potvin's career shape is different from Lidstrom's, and the style is very different, but they aren't too different. Both were very good even-strength defencemen, on a level below Ray Bourque, and both provided enormous contributions on special teams. Potvin has a case to be the second best power play defenceman, behind Orr, and was also a very good penalty killer. Lidstrom is probably a step below on Potvin on the power play, but has been great on the penalty kill as discussed above. Both also have major playoff contributions.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 03:25 PM
  #205
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
Ted Lindsay

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Kaiser View Post
Ted Lindsay is a very likable player. The little guy who did what he could, and was very good at it to boot. Add to this his contributions to the game off the ice and you get someone who's easy to take to your heart despite not having the most impressive hardware shelf. Make no mistake, emotional contribution is certainly a factor when ranking players in an all-time context. I'm not saying it is wrong, rather that it's hard to ignore.

However, I hear he was a quite dirty player, using alot of elbows and similar methods. Knees? Was he any more so than the rest of the 50s stars? How would you guys compare Gordie Howe's physical game to that of Ted Lindsay? Was he nicknamed 'Terrible Ted' because he was physical or downright dirty in line with the rest of the stars despite his length, or because he actually was the nastiest bloke around?

Those of you who know my opinion know that I don't like downright dirty play. I guess me being a Swede plays into it, but I just can't get away from the images from 1972 when I hear of Bobby Clarke. I instantly get pictures of 1977 WHC when I hear of Phil Esposito. I understand and respect those (most people actually) who think that dirty play is the consequence of playing on the edge with an unquenchable will to win at all costs, but it's just not my piece of pie.
Ted Lindsay was one of those players who was loved as a teammate but hated as an opponent. Since there were more opposing teams he was hated by a 5:1 ratio. Ted Lindsay like virtually all the players of his era was a product of the depression/WWII years in Canada. These players brought an incredible desire to win as a team, to succeed as a team to the rink.
Notice his comments about winning as a team, teammates and Henri Richard in the following:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/...onep196607.htm

If the opponent played the game the way Ted Lindsay wanted to play the game then Lindsay had the desired edge. If the opponent turned the other cheek then Lindsay lost the advantage. But a player only has two cheeks. In the 1951 playoffs Dick Irvin separated Maurice Richard from Ted Lindsay as much as possible.
Net result a huge upset since Detroit had surpassed Montreal by app 35 points during the regular season. Compare Ted Lindsay's 1951 playoff stats with Gordie Howe and Sid Abel who stayed on track and you will see the impact.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lindste01.html

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 03:53 PM
  #206
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
2+ GPG simply happened when it happened. Fact independent of Taylor.

Taylor APG = .80 Morris APG = .46 per your table not .44
.80 / .46 = 1.739 = 73.9% not 80% or 81.8% so my extrapolations were fairly good.

This avoids the basic issue which is why get cute? Simply state that Cyclone Taylor was the seminal, innovative playmaker who led the league x out of y years and we all agree, save keystrokes, bandwidth and live happily ever after.
Wow, are you serious? You wanted me to prove that he led the league this many times and by how much. So I did. Then you said "why break it down like that" so I went to career totals and averages. Now you say "just say he led the league this many times and leave it at that."

is there a :headspin: emoticon?

Yeah, you got me, I grabbed the wrong number from the chart. Morris was at .46, not .44. The difference between him and Taylor is 74%, not 82%. My bad. What a difference though. Taylor only led his next closest APG competition by 74%, not 82%. What a bum. And what extrapolations did you make thta were fairly good? All I remember you saying was "show me this. Prove that. demonstrate this."

Quote:
As for SV% ask the question not from the standpoint of the best goalies but from the standpoint of those who did not make it. Jamie Storr had some very attractive SV% numbers in the NHL. Well over .900. What went wrong? It wasn't injury, lack of effort, personal issues, etc.
Jamie Storr's sv% numbers were not that great. At his best, he was an average, dead puck-era goalie. Most goalies' numbers were as good as his. I simply stated that all the consensus "best" goalies of a generation also happen to be the ones with the sv% edge over all their peers. Dryden, Roy, and Hasek. If this connection exists, it is strong evidence that Plante should be much more highly regarded than Sawchuk, which he already is. Way to completely miss the point. Next...

Quote:
Hasek Czech, Bowie, McGee, 2+ GPG either we systematically agree to include data or not. No of this selective inclusion.
So what are you asking? I'm completely lost trying to follow your train of thought, as usual.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 04:11 PM
  #207
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,962
vCash: 500
A note on Ted Lindsay: His generation of forwards was very weak, probably partly as a result of WWII. Ted Lindsay was born in 1925. Here are the forwards born from 1923 to 1927 who played more than 600 NHL games.

Ted Lindsay
Ted Kennedy
Bert Olmstead
Harry Watson
Sid Smith
Floyd Curry
Cal Gardner
Tony Leswick
Gus Bodnar
Tod Sloan
Nick Mickoski
Metro Prystai
Marty Pavelich

4 HHOFers, and Olmstead and Watson are lower-end. After that there isn't a lot of real quality there. Lindsay didn't have a lot of competition at the forward positions in his prime.

Compare to the forwards born in the previous 5-year period from 1918 to 1922, where you have M. Richard, Schmidt, Lach, M. Bentley, Abel, Mosienko, Laprade, Mosdell. Or in the 5 year period after, with Howe, Beliveau, Moore, Geoffrion, Bathgate, Delvecchio, Armstrong, Prentice.


Last edited by overpass: 08-05-2009 at 05:17 PM.
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:21 PM
  #208
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,693
vCash: 500
When players with short peaks and relatively short careers like Bobby Clarke, Guy Lafluer and Denis Potvin crack the top 25. It just makes me think about Sidney Crosby. He already has 3 elite regular seasons and 2 strong playoff runs. It's just a matter of time before he cracks the top 50, let alone top 120. Potvin is honestly a tier 2 HOF defencemen. He may rank only 12 spots below Bourque, but the gap between him and Bourque is far bigger than the gap between him and Salming.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:41 PM
  #209
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I wonder if he's actually going to actually answer this one. I really do hope he does.


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)?
yes, 3 terrible flops that led bowman to focus on D. coffey was traded, and the team played a more defensive style.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I never noticed bias in any of your posts, or at least no more than anyone else has (everyone has their biases of course). Certainly nothing that would disqualify you from running the project.
i have never noticed any anti-canadian (or anti-european or anti-american) bias from FF, either. i have no idea where the idea came from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Kaiser View Post
Ted Lindsay is a very likable player. The little guy who did what he could, and was very good at it to boot. Add to this his contributions to the game off the ice and you get someone who's easy to take to your heart despite not having the most impressive hardware shelf. Make no mistake, emotional contribution is certainly a factor when ranking players in an all-time context. I'm not saying it is wrong, rather that it's hard to ignore.

However, I hear he was a quite dirty player, using alot of elbows and similar methods. Knees? Was he any more so than the rest of the 50s stars? How would you guys compare Gordie Howe's physical game to that of Ted Lindsay? Was he nicknamed 'Terrible Ted' because he was physical or downright dirty in line with the rest of the stars despite his length, or because he actually was the nastiest bloke around?

Those of you who know my opinion know that I don't like downright dirty play. I guess me being a Swede plays into it, but I just can't get away from the images from 1972 when I hear of Bobby Clarke. I instantly get pictures of 1977 WHC when I hear of Phil Esposito. I understand and respect those (most people actually) who think that dirty play is the consequence of playing on the edge with an unquenchable will to win at all costs, but it's just not my piece of pie.
lindsay is likeable now, but was hated when he played. he was very dirty and was extremely tenacious. i have only seen a couple of games from that period, so i cannot say if lindsay was the dirtiest player, but he was almost certainly one of the dirtiest. it seems lindsay was willing to do almost anything to win, which was a big part of his greatness and leadership.

here is a nice video about lindsay:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAi0q...eature=related


i read an old article once in which mikita talked about lindsay. lindsay was traded to chicago as punishment for trying to form a union, and was a mentor to young mikita.
apparently, lindsay's attitude was that the NHL was so tough and brutal that small players like himself and mikita had to be even more tough and brutal than the rest.


from what i've read and seen on video, howe was less dirty, and more sneaky in his dirty play, and was more conventionally physical. howe was able to physically overpower opponents due to his size and strength, but lindsay was not.
howe was apparently very clever about getting away with cheapshots.
lindsay had far more PIM than howe.


lindsay from '45 (lindsay's 1st season) to '60 (his 1st retirement), lindsay played the most games and had by far the most PIM.

linsay: 1635
mortson: 1380
flaman: 1311
richard: 1236
gadsby: 1012
harvey: 994
howe: 942

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
A note on Ted Lindsay: His generation of forwards was very weak, probably partly as a result of WWII. Ted Lindsay was born in 1925. Here are the forwards born from 1923 to 1927 who played more than 600 NHL games.

Ted Lindsay
Ted Kennedy
Bert Olmstead
Harry Watson
Sid Smith
Floyd Curry
Cal Gardner
Tony Leswick
Gus Bodnar
Tod Sloan
Nick Mickoski
Metro Prystai
Marty Pavelich

4 HHOFers, and Olmstead and Watson are lower-end. After that there isn't a lot of real quality there. Lindsay didn't have a lot of competition at the forward positions in his prime.
good point about WW2

what were the d-man and goalies of that generation?

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:41 PM
  #210
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 12,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
When players with short peaks and relatively short careers like Bobby Clarke, Guy Lafluer and Denis Potvin crack the top 25. It just makes me think about Sidney Crosby. He already has 3 elite regular seasons and 2 strong playoff runs. It's just a matter of time before he cracks the top 50, let alone top 120. Potvin is honestly a tier 2 HOF defencemen. He may rank only 12 spots below Bourque, but the gap between him and Bourque is far bigger than the gap between him and Salming.
Why mention Crosby and not Malkin or Ovechkin?

Bourque may be my all-time favorite player. But I don't think he was that much better than Potvin.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:42 PM
  #211
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
When players with short peaks and relatively short careers like Bobby Clarke, Guy Lafluer and Denis Potvin crack the top 25. It just makes me think about Sidney Crosby. He already has 3 elite regular seasons and 2 strong playoff runs. It's just a matter of time before he cracks the top 50, let alone top 120. Potvin is honestly a tier 2 HOF defencemen. He may rank only 12 spots below Bourque, but the gap between him and Bourque is far bigger than the gap between him and Salming.
What?!?! Potvin's career is basically a 10-year peak and 4 seasons where he would have been good enough to be considered the best D-Men on 70% of the franchises in the league at that time.

Lafleur had sustained, really sustained playoff success, and Clarkie was a terrific defensive player.

But I agree with you -- it shouldn't take much more years before Crosby make it . He only had one strong playoff when we casted our votes.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:51 PM
  #212
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,123
vCash: 500
Here's my analysis of the three defensemen eligible for consideration this round. I'm trying to be comprehensive (rather than picking a few specific points in favour/against one of the players).

Offense relative to other defensemen

Kelly: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5
Lidstrom: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5
Discussion: Kelly is the best offensive defenseman. He basically matches Lidstrom's performance despite converting to a forward 12 years into his career. If we include Kelly's career as a forward, we'd include 1961 (6th in scoring, 2nd in assists) and 1963 (13th in scoring, just 2 points out of 9th place). Lidstrom is clearly ahead of Potvin for 2nd place.
Source: Pnep

Offense relative to league

Data: here's how all three players compare, over their ten best years, relative to the league. Note I'm only including Kelly's years as a defenseman.
Kelly: 7th overall in scoring (1950-59)
Potvin: 10th overall in scoring (1975-84)
Lidstrom: 17th overall in scoring (1998-2008)
Source: hockey reference
Discussion: once again, Kelly is the best offensive defensemen. This time Potvin passes Lidstrom for second place.

Defense

Kelly: had an “uncanny knack of reading plays and breaking them up, and he controlled the puck in his own zone adeptly” (source) and was an “effective checker” (source).
Lidstrom: others have already documented that Lidstrom was exceptional defensively, I won’t elaborate further.
Potvin: "one of the last great hip-checkers, he was a hard-hitting defensive stalwart” (source) and was a “tough physical presence in his own end of the rink” (source).
Discussion: I would have a tough time arguing that any of these players is clearly better than the others defensively.

Playoffs

Kelly: unquestionably the #1 defenseman on three Stanley Cup winning teams (missed three of eight games in 1952). Finished 3rd (1960), 4th (1964), 7th (1954), 7th (1963), 8th (1962), 10th (1948), 11th (1956) in PO scoring.
Lidstrom: won the 2002 Conn Smythe; #1 defenseman on four Stanley Cup winning teams (though some would dispute 1997 or 1998). Finished 3rd (1998), 4th (2002), 7th (2009), 8th (1995), 8th (2002) in PO scoring.
Potvin: unquestionably the #1 defenseman on four Stanley Cup winning teams. Finished 2nd (1976), 3rd (1982), 4th (1981), 9th (1980), 11th (1983), 11th (1975) in PO scoring.
Discussion: Kelly is probably the best playoff performer, he was incredibly dominant offensively. I’d take Potvin over Lidstrom (better offensively and more valuable to his team when you consider the Isles vs Wings other defensemen).

Hart trophy

Note: I’m only including years where a player earned >5% of the maximum possible number of votes to prevent a player for getting credit for a top ten finish when they only received votes from one or two writers.
Kelly: 2nd (1954), 3rd (1953), 4th (1951), 4th (1956)
Lidstrom: 4th (2008), 7th (2006), 8th (2003), 10th (2001)
Potvin: 2nd (1976), 4th (1979), 7th (1975), 7th (1978)
Discussion: Kelly gets the advantage here with four years in the top five. Potvin gets second place.
Source: see thread I created on Hart trophy historic data

Norris trophy
Note 1: I’m only including years where a player earned >5% of the maximum possible number of votes to prevent a player for getting credit for a top ten finish when they only received votes from one or two writers.
Note 2: I’ve done some creative accounting for Kelly. The Norris trophy was first awarded in 1954, during the middle of his prime. Kelly was a unanimous first-team all-star in 1952, 1953 and 1954 so I’m giving him credit for the Norris trophy each of those years. I’m also giving him credit for a Norris runner-up in 1951 (when he earned another spot on the first all-star team) and for 4th place in 1950 (when he earned a spot on the second all-star team).
Kelly: 1st (1952), 1st (1953), 1st (1954), 1st (1954), 2nd (1951), 2nd (1955), 2nd (1957), 3rd (1956), 4th (195)
Lidstrom: 1st (2001), 1st (2002), 1st (2003), 1st (2006), 1st (2007), 1st (2008), 2nd (1998) 2nd (1999), 2nd (2000), 3rd (2009), 6th (1996), 6th (1997), 6th (2004)
Potvin: 1st (1976), 1st (1978), 1st (1979, 2nd (1975), 2nd (1981), 3rd (1977), 4th (1984), 8th (1982)
Discussion: Lidstrom gets the edge here, though keep in mind Kelly only played 12 years as a defenseman. Still, in that abbreviated time, he fared better than Potvin.
Source: see thread I created on Norris trophy historic data

Physical play
Potvin was, by a wide margin, the most physical of the three players. I don’t think elaboration is required. Lidstrom is not a physical player (though he isn’t soft). I haven’t seen any evidence to show that Kelly was a physical player (he was a boxer, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he was tough on the ice).

Discipline
Although I try to avoid cross-era statistical comparisons as much as possible, the number of PIM per game hasn’t fluctuated too dramatically over the past sixty years. Over the course of their careers Potvin averaged 105 PIM, Lidstrom 27 PIM and Kelly 20 PIM (per 82 games). After any reasonable adjustments one would conclude that Potvin was, by a wide margin, the most penalized player. I’d call Lidstrom and Kelly virtually even.

Health
Lidstrom: played 1,330 of a possible 1,362 games (97.7%)
Kelly: played 1,316 of a possible 1,380 games (95.4%). Goes up to 95.9% through seventeen years (to make comparable to Lidstrom).
Potvin: played 1,060 of a possible 1,198 games (88.5%).
Discussion: Lidstrom and Kelly are virtually even (tiny edge to Lidstrom). Potvin was clearly the least healthy.

Competition
Kelly: faced off against the #2 defenseman of all-time (Harvey), and a top 20 defenseman (Gadsby)
Lidstrom: mostly faced off against old, less effective versions of the greats (Bourque, Stevens, Chelios), or borderline top twenty defensemen (Pronger, Niedermayer).
Potvin: lost a sure Norris to Orr (1975). Before injuries dominated strong competition (Park, Salming, Robinson, Lapointe). Contended a bit with Bourque and Coffey late in his career but was still beat out by some weaker defenders (Carlyle, Wilson).
Discussion: Kelly faced fewer top-end defensemen than Potvin, but Harvey had such a stranglehold on the Norris I think Kelly was unluckier.

Overall analysis

Red Kelly is the best of the three. He’s the best offensively, he has the best Hart voting record, and he had incredible health and discipline. He did this against tough competition, was arguably the best of the three in the playoffs, and was excellent defensively.

I’d rank Lidstrom next. I think Potvin at his peak was better than Lidstrom but the Wing spent an amazing 13 years as a serious Norris candidate (versus 8 for Potvin) and that gives him the edge.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 08-05-2009 at 05:57 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:55 PM
  #213
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post


good point about WW2

what were the d-man and goalies of that generation?
Red Almas
Harvey Bennett
Johnny Bower
Bob DeCourcy
Emile Francis
Jack Gelineau
Gord Henry (not Jim)
Harry Lumley
Jean Marois
Gerry McNeil
Marcel Pelletier
Chuck Rayner
Al Rollins
Doug Stevenson

Best in this group is obviously Bower, but many of the fowards that were named didn't play A LOT against Bower.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 05:57 PM
  #214
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,843
vCash: 500
Please don't let this thread turn into debating the merits of Crosby/Malkin/Ovechkin. If the next update is in a few years, they will probably all be on the list at that time, but it's off topic for the discussion we are supposed to be having. The conversations about Cyclone Taylor is also semi-off topic (only semi because he should be up for voting soon). But I think this project works best if we focus on the players up for voting.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:07 PM
  #215
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,843
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Defense

Kelly: had an “uncanny knack of reading plays and breaking them up, and he controlled the puck in his own zone adeptly” (source) and was an “effective checker” (source).
Lidstrom: others have already documented that Lidstrom was exceptional defensively, I won’t elaborate further.
Potvin: "one of the last great hip-checkers, he was a hard-hitting defensive stalwart” (source) and was a “tough physical presence in his own end of the rink” (source).
Discussion: I would have a tough time arguing that any of these players is clearly better than the others defensively.
Was Kelly ever considered one of the elite defensive guys of his era? I was always under the impression that he was one of the best ever offensively, while being "merely" very good defensively (kind of like a Shore but a different style). Whereas Potvin and Lidstrom were considered at or towards the top of the league at both ends of the ice while they played.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:07 PM
  #216
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,862
vCash: 500
1923-27 Defensemen

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
A note on Ted Lindsay: His generation of forwards was very weak, probably partly as a result of WWII. Ted Lindsay was born in 1925. Here are the forwards born from 1923 to 1927 who played more than 600 NHL games.

Ted Lindsay
Ted Kennedy
Bert Olmstead
Harry Watson
Sid Smith
Floyd Curry
Cal Gardner
Tony Leswick
Gus Bodnar
Tod Sloan
Nick Mickoski
Metro Prystai
Marty Pavelich

4 HHOFers, and Olmstead and Watson are lower-end. After that there isn't a lot of real quality there. Lindsay didn't have a lot of competition at the forward positions in his prime.

Compare to the forwards born in the previous 5-year period from 1918 to 1922, where you have M. Richard, Schmidt, Lach, M. Bentley, Abel, Mosienko, Laprade, Mosdell. Or in the 5 year period after, with Howe, Beliveau, Moore, Geoffrion, Bathgate, Delvecchio, Armstrong, Prentice.
Has to be balanced against defensemen.

Just listing the obvious HHOFers: Fern Flaman, Bill Gadsby, Doug Harvey, Red Kelly, Allen Stanley and the tragic Bill Barilko plus solid regulars from Toronto Gus Mortson, Jimmy Thomson.

A five year stretch that produces high level defensemen like Doug Harvey, Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby plus solid plus performers like Allan Stanley, Fern Flaman debunks the WWII issue.

Interestingly enough the WWI issue is never raised yet the direct impact of WWI may have been greater.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:17 PM
  #217
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Was Kelly ever considered one of the elite defensive guys of his era? I was always under the impression that he was one of the best ever offensively, while being "merely" very good defensively (kind of like a Shore but a different style). Whereas Potvin and Lidstrom were considered at or towards the top of the league at both ends of the ice while they played.
Yes, he was definitely among the elite defensively.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:39 PM
  #218
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post


i read an old article once in which mikita talked about lindsay. lindsay was traded to chicago as punishment for trying to form a union, and was a mentor to young mikita.
apparently, lindsay's attitude was that the NHL was so tough and brutal that small players like himself and mikita had to be even more tough and brutal than the rest.

Heard Mikita talking about Lindsay in a radio interview a while back. Since Mikita & Lindsay were both small players rookie Mikita went to Ted for advice. Ted's reply was "hit em first"

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:45 PM
  #219
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
A five year stretch that produces high level defensemen like Doug Harvey, Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby plus solid plus performers like Allan Stanley, Fern Flaman debunks the WWII issue.
Unless other similarly sized chunks of time produced even more great players, or better players.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 06:51 PM
  #220
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
When players with short peaks and relatively short careers like Bobby Clarke, Guy Lafluer and Denis Potvin crack the top 25. It just makes me think about Sidney Crosby. He already has 3 elite regular seasons and 2 strong playoff runs. It's just a matter of time before he cracks the top 50, let alone top 120.
How long do you expect a player's peak to be? Potvin's all-star selections span a full decade, and he captained a dynasty from start to finish.

Lafleur had six outstanding years with four Stanley Cups. That's quite a peak. I can see where you're going as far as career is concerned with Lafleur, as it's generally accepted that he did little outside of that peak, but six years at that level is by no means brief.

Clarke had a pretty typical career curve. You could probably label his peak as '73-'77, which is still no worse than about what you'd expect for a peak. I wouldnt' say 15 years is a short career, it's merely not a display of supreme longevity.

Quote:
Potvin is honestly a tier 2 HOF defencemen. He may rank only 12 spots below Bourque, but the gap between him and Bourque is far bigger than the gap between him and Salming
Then you must have a very small top tier. To say he's far closer to Salming than Bourque is borderline outrageous. I have Bourque and Potvin at #4 and #5 for d-men. Salming, while a fine player, was probably around #15-20. In the single must-win game scenario, I would probably still take Potvin over Bourque. It's Ray's unparalled longevity that ultimately gets him the nod over the Islander. Either way, they're at least comparable, and both head a shoulders above Salming, with no disrespect intended towards Borje.

I'm probably in what is starting to become a minority, but I still have Potvin and Kelly ahead of Lidstrom. Stonefly took the words out of my mouth. I do consider Lidstrom's lack of physicality a detriment. The effect guys like Potvin had on the other team's psyche is important. Being scared to go into a corner with somebody is a huge hinderance. Sure Lidstrom has managed to stay healthy for a long period of time, but there comes a point when those extra games played he has on Potvin become of less importance. Can you really point to Lidstrom going out and getting another 1st AST selection and saying "ah, well he's passed so-and-so on my list now"? I don't think so. I've seen all I'm going to see out of Lidstrom, and I don't see how he can vault past Potvin on my list, short of maintaining his level of play for another five or six years (putting him into Bourque territory for sustained elite-level play).

I rank Kelly based mainly on his play as a defenseman. Many cite the fact that he was a strong center after switching positions mid-career and use that to move him up in their rankings. While it's a nice thing to have on your resume, what he did up front pales in comparison to his blueline play. The offense Kelly provided from defense, in that era, is outstanding. If Doug Harvey is taken out of the equation, Kelly probably puts up a run of Norris' similar to Lidstrom's (also assuming the trophy had existed for the entirety of his career).

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 07:16 PM
  #221
foame
Registered User
 
foame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Here's my analysis of the three defensemen eligible for consideration this round. I'm trying to be comprehensive (rather than picking a few specific points in favour/against one of the players).

Competition
Kelly: faced off against the #2 defenseman of all-time (Harvey), and a top 20 defenseman (Gadsby)
Lidstrom: mostly faced off against old, less effective versions of the greats (Bourque, Stevens, Chelios), or borderline top twenty defensemen (Pronger, Niedermayer).
Potvin: lost a sure Norris to Orr (1975). Before injuries dominated strong competition (Park, Salming, Robinson, Lapointe). Contended a bit with Bourque and Coffey late in his career but was still beat out by some weaker defenders (Carlyle, Wilson).
Discussion: Kelly faced fewer top-end defensemen than Potvin, but Harvey had such a stranglehold on the Norris I think Kelly was unluckier.

Overall analysis

Red Kelly is the best of the three. He’s the best offensively, he has the best Hart voting record, and he had incredible health and discipline. He did this against tough competition, was arguably the best of the three in the playoffs, and was excellent defensively.

I’d rank Lidstrom next. I think Potvin at his peak was better than Lidstrom but the Wing spent an amazing 13 years as a serious Norris candidate (versus 8 for Potvin) and that gives him the edge.
Great comparision.

You missed that Lidström played in an era with more teams (6 vs ~20 vs ~28) and therefor it was harder for him to win Cups, statistical awards and hart shares.

foame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 07:22 PM
  #222
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by foame View Post
Great comparision.

You missed that Lidström played in an era with more teams (6 vs ~20 vs ~28) and therefor it was harder for him to win Cups, statistical awards and hart shares.
Harder to win Cups, yes, but not awards. Only elite level players are in the running for awards, so whether the league has 100 or 700 players isn't going to make a difference. Only the top 10 or 20 players are going to get consideration for awards in both scenarios.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 08:00 PM
  #223
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Harder to win Cups, yes, but not awards. Only elite level players are in the running for awards, so whether the league has 100 or 700 players isn't going to make a difference. Only the top 10 or 20 players are going to get consideration for awards in both scenarios.
Well, the influx of european means there are more elite players. But some of today's elite players (both europeans and north americans) would probably be stuck on 2nd and 3rd lines, too.

(it depends on what you mean by elite. A guy like Mike Gartner would be stuck on a 2nd or 3rd... or maybe even not play at all. A guy like Mike Richards would fare really well on a 3rd line. A guy like Ovie would have found a niche as a 1st liners on most teams, and the main reason why he wouldn't on some others would be attributed to coach preferences.)

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 08:02 PM
  #224
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Just to illustrate how much longer Lidstrom has been at the top of the league compared to Potvin:

In Norris voting:
Potvin has placed 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10
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

This is not simply a case of "Lidstrom had a longer career", but that Lidstrom was at the top of the league for many more years than Potvin.

Earlier I had posted hockey-reference.com adjusted points (to 6 GPG) for Bourque, Lidstrom and Potvin:



Offensively, Potvin has 3 years better than Lidstrom (by about a 9% margin), and then Lidstrom takes over. HO's earlier post of offense relative to peers also supports this.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2009, 08:16 PM
  #225
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,843
vCash: 500
The more I look at it, the more I am convinced that Howe and Kelly were the guys who made the 50s Red Wings go. I used to consider Kelly to be clearly behind Potvin in an all-time context, but now I have them as a tossup slightly behind Lidstrom.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 10:18 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.