Give us your top ten players of all time

[quoipourquoi]

50 hits a year is a finesse defenseman, doesn't make him any worse, that's just the style he played.

He used positioning, skating and his stick to break up plays and defend.

A physical defender, like Chara, uses his strength and punishing play to break up plays.

Look at it this way, no one was ever afraid for their physical well being when going against Lidstrom...they were against a Chara, Stevens or Pronger.

Which while employed by defenders throughout hockey history, has become increasingly viable with lighter hockey sticks (not that he wasn’t the best at it in the era regardless). He’d probably be more physical out of necessity in previous eras.

 

[Canadiens1958]

50 hits a year is a finesse defenseman, doesn't make him any worse, that's just the style he played.

He used positioning, skating and his stick to break up plays and defend.

A physical defender, like Chara, uses his strength and punishing play to break up plays.

Look at it this way, no one was ever afraid for their physical well being when going against Lidstrom...they were against a Chara, Stevens or Pronger.

Let's explain this.

Never claimed he was worse.

Just made the point supported by data that others who are viewed as modern elite defencemen were less physical - namely Duncan Keith.

Previously with the listed defencemen such misidentifications did not happen.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm sorry, but someone else in his position was markedly better that year. Someone whose sv% was nearly identical but with a much worse team in front of him.

Someone who removed himself from the playoffs while Martin Brodeur played fantastic through two rounds. Not sure how a voter would still lean Hasek if the vote occurred in the Summer after all the hockey was played. Can’t be too many Hart winners whose teammates were publicly stating that they would run him in pre-season.

So if we acknowledge the season as a whole rather than the strict divide of regular season and playoffs, I’d say Martin Brodeur had the best one in 1996-97. If someone were to make the same argument for any of Nicklas Lidstrom’s seasons to be elevated relative to poor showings in the Hart vote (2001-02), I don’t know that anyone would disagree, but I’m not sure that he necessarily gains ground on Martin Brodeur who also has those 2003 playoffs that were bookended by Hart nominations.

Just seems like Brodeur launched himself into the best-player-any-position conversation more often over the same time frame. So why is Nicklas Lidstrom considered better?

 

[Canadiens1958]

And in 1965 or 1966, the Bruins and Rangers are posting worse goal differentials than the 2018 Arizona Coyotes. So 40% of the schedule was arguably easier than playing Arizona, given the presumed quality of an O6 player's supporting cast.

This is bad.

2018 Arizona did not play the two best offensive and defensive teams a total of 28 times so the gap was not magnified as much.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Which while employed by defenders throughout hockey history, has become increasingly viable with lighter hockey sticks (not that he wasn’t the best at it in the era regardless). He’d probably be more physical out of necessity in previous eras.

maybe, may not.

my point was just that Lidstrom didnt use fear/intimidation the way more physical elite defenders in his era did.

 

[DDRhockey]

Wait a sec why are we knocking Lidstrom for lack of hart trophies when the great bourque got 0 himself?

 

[blogofmike]

This is bad.

2018 Arizona did not play the two best offensive and defensive teams a total of 28 times so the gap was not magnified as much.

But the Coyotes would have had about 28 games against the top third of offenses in their league.

And we can argue forever that a team looked good because another team was so bad VS a team only looked bad because another team was so good.

But you appear to be wrong about the cause of the 1966 Bruins' poor totals. Chicago and Montreal are the top two on Boston's schedule here:

Opponent	Goal Differential
New York Rangers	-6
Montreal Canadiens	-18
Toronto Maple Leafs	-22
Chicago Black Hawks	-26
Detroit Red Wings	-29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maybe Montreal treated Boston like a night off, but they didn't magnify any gaps. The end result is that the Bruins' games vs the Big 2 goal differential teams saw them lose by a little less than against the Medium 2. And the awful Rangers also helped them look a little better on average.

Meanwhile in a more balanced league, 2018 Arizona faced the top goal differential team twice. And came out even against Tampa at 5 goals each.

 

[danincanada]

Answer is that Lidstrom whose core career 1995-2010 lacked other prime or future great defencemen benefits from three factors.

Lack of complete statistical data from other eras and positions which allows him to slip thru the cracks.

Specifically pertaining to Brodeur and other goalies, previous projects did not have access to "Days Rest" data and other archival data that provides a more complete picture about goalies across eras.

The Harvey comparable. Again incomplete archival data,especially pre 1960 helps Lidstrom. As does counting which removes non-Norris defencemen - Park, Serge Savard, Tim Horton, from consideration.

False narratives. Prime example the debunked Lidstrom finesse defenceman narrative. Disappeared when it was shown that Lidstrom actually hit more than Duncan Keith whose only physical attribute is going off the rails at times. Only J. C. Tremblay amongst historically finesse defencemen has a sufficient data bank. Kelly, Quackenbush do not.

Others who were a blend - Serge Savard, Orr, Salming, Bourque, had stronger finesse skills.

Finally the false population narratives and the International arguments that only surface when Lidstrom is discussed. Interesting thread about USSR vs Russia. The International and population arguments never surfaced were ignored as they should be.

The NHL lacked great defenseman for the 15 years right after it became the most diverse it had ever been? That span actually had what most believe is the deepest group of elite two-way guys in league history at the start, then Lidstrom’s true prime peers with Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake, Zubov, etc., then a whole new generation on its way up with Chara, Keith, Doughty and many of the guys who are in their prime today. Compare this with Harvey? Who was there before, during his prime after Kelly wasn’t in the picture, and who came right after? Sorry, not close in terms of depth or the number of great defenseman. Posters tend to just point to Kelly for this but you keep claiming he played forward earlier so where does that leave us for competition?

What’s the statistical data you’re waiting for? Are you going to try to base everything on +\- if more data is provided?

You are conflating Lidstrom having more hits recorded some seasons than Keith as him not being finesse. The interesting aspect of this to me is that there was a story about the Blackhawks coaching staff going over video of how Lidstrom played with Keith before he broke out. Maybe he realized he could be more efficient by not ever taking himself out of the play by going for a bodycheck and it stuck.

Serge Savard was more “finesse” than Lidstrom but he had one 60 point season (52 adjusted) with those powerhouse Habs teams and usually finished with far less points during his prime seasons? Don’t get me wrong, he was a great player but he was not on Lidstrom’s level whether you coin it finesse or anything else. Salming was a nice player too but he topped out at 71 adjusted points and it slides down a lot after his top few seasons.

It’s not just about the Lidstrom/Harvey comparison but that is the best way to show it cause the my are so similar. The talent pool argument should always be factored in on some level when comparing the O6 with what came after. It’s irrational to pretend pre-baby boom Canada could produce the same amount of elite talent as baby-boom and post baby-boom Canada, along with all the other nations that joined after in producing elite players that played in the NHL. The quicker this whole section embraces this idea, and at least attempts to scale what it actually means, the better. Otherwise these cross era comparisons will continue to be incomplete and badly flawed.

You fail to see how the Soviet/Russian comparison falls short due to the social and political factors that influenced their hockey programs? It was a unique situation even though both still produced a lot of great players anyways.

This whole post of yours is incomprehensible in terms of reasoning. Then again, it’s just a vague summary that kind of lacks any reasoning or justification of the points at all.

 

[danincanada]

With a few exceptions (eg, Orr), appreciation for the excellence of defencemen usually requires many viewings. How many games did Harvey, Johnson, Kelly and Pronovost play against each other in the 50s? Two dynasty powerhouses, the Habs and the Wings, meeting 14 times per season and then in the Cup finals far more often than not for the greater part of a decade — serious fans and writers (trophy voters) had so many opportunities to develop an appreciation for the craft of playing defence at a superior level. I’ve often thought that Harvey and Kelly in particular both received so much Hart consideration during their primes because of this, and rightly so.

Today, with 31 teams and so few opportunities to gain appreciation for a defenceman’s craftsmanship over time, many fans and media members turn to raw stats and/or quick late night sports report video clips to form the basis of their opinion. They don’t have a lot of choice, frankly. But how often have we seen Erik Karlsson and Drew Doughty on the same ice? My suspicion is that voters in the 50s saw Harvey and Kelly on the same ice more in one season than voters today have seen Doughty and Karlsson on the same ice in their entire careers.

This is how I see it as well but I'll expand further. Imagine how many different options Hart voters have now compared to the O6. It's not just about getting enough views in but with a trophy defined as "most valuable to his team" one can pick a player they deem as most valuable to each team and go from there. Obviously there could be more than one eligible player on each team but the difference is huge if you're comparing the top player, or couple players, from 30 or 31 teams compared to just 6 teams. When you just focus on defenseman trying to garner Hart votes in the modern era guys have to compete with a much larger group of league wide forwards, goalies, and other defenseman. It's night and day and by the end of the season lots of voters are probably just staring at a stats sheet and trying to remember the times they got to see those guys play.

 

[danincanada]

But the Coyotes would have had about 28 games against the top third of offenses in their league.

And we can argue forever that a team looked good because another team was so bad VS a team only looked bad because another team was so good.

But you appear to be wrong about the cause of the 1966 Bruins' poor totals. Chicago and Montreal are the top two on Boston's schedule here:

Opponent	Goal Differential
New York Rangers	-6
Montreal Canadiens	-18
Toronto Maple Leafs	-22
Chicago Black Hawks	-26
Detroit Red Wings	-29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maybe Montreal treated Boston like a night off, but they didn't magnify any gaps. The end result is that the Bruins' games vs the Big 2 goal differential teams saw them lose by a little less than against the Medium 2. And the awful Rangers also helped them look a little better on average.

Meanwhile in a more balanced league, 2018 Arizona faced the top goal differential team twice. And came out even against Tampa at 5 goals each.

Bolded is the key here. Which one was it? Probably something in between like most things in life.

It's a bit of a stretch but to me the O6 is closer to the RSL than the modern NHL because of this very point. Only 6 teams and 2 or 3 of them were far behind the rest most seasons and usually 1 to 3 were elite. It's not exactly screaming "full of great players" like some claim. Some even claim if you took all the best players of today and put them on 6 teams that would be the O6. Of course there were great players but they did get to beat up on lesser teams and really only had competition the other couple strong teams each year.

 

[Canadiens1958]

But the Coyotes would have had about 28 games against the top third of offenses in their league.

And we can argue forever that a team looked good because another team was so bad VS a team only looked bad because another team was so good.

But you appear to be wrong about the cause of the 1966 Bruins' poor totals. Chicago and Montreal are the top two on Boston's schedule here:

Opponent	Goal Differential
New York Rangers	-6
Montreal Canadiens	-18
Toronto Maple Leafs	-22
Chicago Black Hawks	-26
Detroit Red Wings	-29

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Maybe Montreal treated Boston like a night off, but they didn't magnify any gaps. The end result is that the Bruins' games vs the Big 2 goal differential teams saw them lose by a little less than against the Medium 2. And the awful Rangers also helped them look a little better on average.

Meanwhile in a more balanced league, 2018 Arizona faced the top goal differential team twice. And came out even against Tampa at 5 goals each.

Small sample size of 2 games and not the comparison in question.

 

[danincanada]

Martin Brodeur was team MVP 10 times (is that “nearly always”?) and still managed 7 top-5 Hart placements.

All I’m asking is that if people want to trash Hart voting for treating Lidstrom substantially worse than Martin Brodeur, they at least tell us specifically where the voters went wrong (2000? 2006?). Because even in Nicklas Lidstrom’s best placement, 2007-08, he was just 7 voting points ahead of Brodeur that same year.

What is it that generates the gap between Nicklas Lidstrom (#17 on the last HOH list) and the more historically relevant all-time leader in Wins and Shutouts (#37 on the same all-time list)? What is it that makes Lidstrom a contender for this thread when Brodeur might not make anyone’s top-20?

Because my fear is that the answer is that it’s easier for Lidstrom to piggyback off of the Harvey comparison.

Using Hart trophy voting is too complicated because of its definition. Voters clearly get confused by this so who is voting for best player and who is voting for “most valuable to his team”? Some won’t vote for a D because “they have their own trophy” and I’ve heard some of them flat out state this. The same could be said for Brodeur and other goalies but when they stand on their heads its easier to see and prove with statistics. Most of your argument for why you think Lidstrom is being overrated seems to hinge on Hart voting though. We’ve seen Perry and Hall win it recently so what does that say to you and how much stock can we put in it?

The Brodeur comparison isn’t terrible but I think Marty is getting underrated as well. I’d have him below Roy for sure but Hasek is interesting because Hasek has the peak but Brodeur has better longevity. He got to play with very strong defensive systems and players so it’s easy to say he wasn’t as good as it may seem but he sure was great most of the time and his puck handling was second to none. “He changed the game” might be the refrain some use when reading about how the NHL changed the rules for goalies handling the puck due to his proficiency.

Back to Hart voting though, look at the years Brodeur finished high. The leading scorers on his teams when he finished top 5 were as follows:

Holik 62, Holik 65, Elias 96, Elias 57, Elias 81, Elias 69, Parise 65.

Only Elias broke 70 points twice and Stevens was a beast defensively but in terms of offense his numbers were too low to get Hart recognition then.

Flip to Lidstrom and he always had a higher scoring forward or two and his teams were usually expected to be elite so that wasn’t doing him any favors for the optics of the Hart. During his top 10 finishes his teams leading scorers were:

Yzerman 79, Shanahan 76, Fedorov 83, Datsyuk 87, Datsyuk 87, Datsyuk 97.

It’s way easier for voters to look at records of teams at the end of the season and see that they had a high scoring forward or two and think their offense is the biggest reason the team finished at or near the top of the standings. Brodeur only had that twice but Lidstrom always had great forwards putting up bigger numbers than him. Things like this can be a factor for Hart voters.

The Red Wings never dropped below 100 points in a season from 2000 until Lidstrom retired and other than the shortened season it only happened 3 times during his career. This is why Lidstrom has the all-time mark in games won by a skater. The guy played half the game getting the shutdown role from two coaches who loved match ups in Bowman and Babcock, and was often considered both the best offensively and defensively among defenseman. Looking back he was clearly underrated by Hart voters but they are a confused bunch so it doesn’t bother me. It seemed to bother the guy who negotiated contracts with Lidstrom's agent though:

"Nick Lidstrom is a guy that should have won the most valuable player award (Hart Trophy) at some point in time," Holland said. "He's been the greatest defenceman in the game for a decade."

You really do have to see him in person...

I’m not sure I can point to a season and prove he should have won the Hart but during his top seasons he had a good case for being a finalist. Holland recoiled a bit later but still didn't understand it after Lidstrom retired:

"We've had the premier defenseman of this era," said Holland. "That's why we've had 100 points-plus for 10 consecutive years. That's why we've won four Stanley Cups. We've been in the final four eight times since Nick has been here."...

..."I think if you picked the Hart Trophy for the decade, 2000 to 2010, I think Nick Lidstrom wins it," Holland said. "I really feel Nick Lidstrom should have won a Hart sometime along that road. And my frustration for him is that he's never even been a finalist. As important as he's been to our team's success, and as successful as our team was over the last 10-12 years, a period in which he won six Norris Trophies and was nominated three other times, it's hard to believe that the best defenseman in the game was never considered as a Hart candidate."

LeBrun: Meet Nicklas Lidstrom, aka 'The Perfect Human'

 

[quoipourquoi]

I would imagine that if we had that 2000-2010 decade-long Hart vote (which obviously hurts players who were probably rated higher over 1995-2005 or 2005-2015 than Brodeur or Lidstrom were from 2000-2010), we’d end up with Brodeur, Lidstrom, and Sakic as Finalists.

But I don’t know that Lidstrom necessarily draws any separation even in this window. After all, Brodeur is a seven-time Vezina nominee (eight for Lidstrom - against worse competition) who picks up three Hart nominations and 401 wins over those 10 seasons.

Even if Lidstrom was regarded as marginally more impressive than Brodeur from 2000-2010, would anyone suggest Martin Brodeur wasn’t already ahead based on the 1990s?

 

[Sentinel]

Frankly, I am amazed to no end someone said Lidstrom "lacked in finesse." He defined finesse. In the history of the league nobody embodied finasse more than St. Nick.

 

[Sentinel]

I would imagine that if we had that 2000-2010 decade-long Hart vote (which obviously hurts players who were probably rated higher over 1995-2005 or 2005-2015 than Brodeur or Lidstrom were from 2000-2010), we’d end up with Brodeur, Lidstrom, and Sakic as Finalists.

But I don’t know that Lidstrom necessarily draws any separation even in this window. After all, Brodeur is a seven-time Vezina nominee (eight for Lidstrom - against worse competition) who picks up three Hart nominations and 401 wins over those 10 seasons.

Even if Lidstrom was regarded as marginally more impressive than Brodeur from 2000-2010, would anyone suggest Martin Brodeur wasn’t already ahead based on the 1990s?

Who was Brodeur's competition in the 00s? Luongo, Miller, Lundquist, Kiprusoff, and *gasp* Theodore? Lidstrom's was Pronger, Blake, Niedermeyer, Chara, and Keith. I daresay the second group ranks higher.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The NHL lacked great defenseman for the 15 years right after it became the most diverse it had ever been? That span actually had what most believe is the deepest group of elite two-way guys in league history at the start, then Lidstrom’s true prime peers with Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake, Zubov, etc., then a whole new generation on its way up with Chara, Keith, Doughty and many of the guys who are in their prime today. Compare this with Harvey? Who was there before, during his prime after Kelly wasn’t in the picture, and who came right after? Sorry, not close in terms of depth or the number of great defenseman. Posters tend to just point to Kelly for this but you keep claiming he played forward earlier so where does that leave us for competition?

What’s the statistical data you’re waiting for? Are you going to try to base everything on +\- if more data is provided?

You are conflating Lidstrom having more hits recorded some seasons than Keith as him not being finesse. The interesting aspect of this to me is that there was a story about the Blackhawks coaching staff going over video of how Lidstrom played with Keith before he broke out. Maybe he realized he could be more efficient by not ever taking himself out of the play by going for a bodycheck and it stuck.

Serge Savard was more “finesse” than Lidstrom but he had one 60 point season (52 adjusted) with those powerhouse Habs teams and usually finished with far less points during his prime seasons? Don’t get me wrong, he was a great player but he was not on Lidstrom’s level whether you coin it finesse or anything else. Salming was a nice player too but he topped out at 71 adjusted points and it slides down a lot after his top few seasons.

It’s not just about the Lidstrom/Harvey comparison but that is the best way to show it cause the my are so similar. The talent pool argument should always be factored in on some level when comparing the O6 with what came after. It’s irrational to pretend pre-baby boom Canada could produce the same amount of elite talent as baby-boom and post baby-boom Canada, along with all the other nations that joined after in producing elite players that played in the NHL. The quicker this whole section embraces this idea, and at least attempts to scale what it actually means, the better. Otherwise these cross era comparisons will continue to be incomplete and badly flawed.

You fail to see how the Soviet/Russian comparison falls short due to the social and political factors that influenced their hockey programs? It was a unique situation even though both still produced a lot of great players anyways.

This whole post of yours is incomprehensible in terms of reasoning. Then again, it’s just a vague summary that kind of lacks any reasoning or justification of the points at all.

Kelly played forward at times later, not earlier.

Lidstrom having more hits than Keith just shows that there were other finesse defencemen around. Keith, Rafalski, Ehrhoff,etc. At the same time you have to look at PIMs.

Lidstrom topped at 50 PIM in 2005-06 when the tougher application of obstruction rules were introduced which means previously there was a bit more to his finesse.

Quackenbush had miniscule PIMs, only 95 in over 700 career games, Kelly and Tremblay were well below Lidstrom numbers as well.

Check the Soviet/Czech thread about scoring in minor and major tournaments. The Swedes and Finish players are ignored yet they would have been factors in the O? or NHL hockey.

O6, 1954 to 1960, key Soviets were well into their thirties. International teams had problems playing reinstated NHLers like Sid Smith, John Henderson, J.P.Lamirande.

1958 WHC:

1958 Ice Hockey World Championships - Wikipedia

Combined Sweden and Finland lost 34-2 to Canada yet such players could have influenced the NHL? Sven Tumba deserved a chance post his 5 game Amateur tryout with Quebec in 1957 but let's not go overboard.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Who was Brodeur's competition in the 00s? Luongo, Miller, Lundquist, Kiprusoff, and *gasp* Theodore? Lidstrom's was Pronger, Blake, Niedermeyer, Chara, and Keith. I daresay the second group ranks higher.

You know you just ran off a list of Hart and Pearson nominees as though they were weak competition for Brodeur to go up against in the individual seasons where they earned those Hart and Pearson nominations?

Miikka Kiprusoff will probably never make the HOF like Scott Niedermayer, but you know who Miikka Kiprusoff was better than in 2004-2006? Scott Niedermayer... and maybe everybody else in the league.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frankly, I am amazed to no end someone said Lidstrom "lacked in finesse." He defined finesse. In the history of the league nobody embodied finasse more than St. Nick.

Quotation marks? Produce the quote.

 

[blogofmike]

Small sample size of 2 games and not the comparison in question.

Indeed. The large sample from 1966 shows that the Bruins were bad against everybody though. They weren't bleeding goals because of the presence of some super teams. They were awful.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Kelly played forward at times later, not earlier.

Lidstrom having more hits than Keith just shows that there were other finesse defencemen around. Keith, Rafalski, Ehrhoff,etc. At the same time you have to look at PIMs.

Lidstrom topped at 50 PIM in 2005-06 when the tougher application of obstruction rules were introduced which means previously there was a bit more to his finesse.

Quackenbush had miniscule PIMs, only 95 in over 700 career games, Kelly and Tremblay were well below Lidstrom numbers as well.

Check the Soviet/Czech thread about scoring in minor and major tournaments. The Swedes and Finish players are ignored yet they would have been factors in the O6 or NHL hockey.

O6, 1954 to 1960, key Soviets were well into their thirties. International teams had problems playing reinstated NHLers like Sid Smith, John Henderson, J.P.Lamirande.

1958 WHC:

1958 Ice Hockey World Championships - Wikipedia

Combined Sweden and Finland lost 34-2 to Canada yet such players could have influenced the NHL? Sven Tumba deserved a chance post his 5 game Amateur tryout with Quebec in 1957 but let's not go overboard.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Indeed. The large sample from 1966 shows that the Bruins were bad against everybody though. They weren't bleeding goals because of the presence of some super teams. They were awful.

Not in dispute, 1966 Bruins were last in GF and GA but 5th in the NHL. Issue is with Arizona who were not last in both, in fact 22 in GA so ........

 

[danincanada]

Kelly played forward at times later, not earlier.

It seems when Kelly is pointed out as having better offensive numbers than Harvey you like to say he played some forward, and earlier than people here realize, but in this case you claim it was later. Convenient.

Lidstrom having more hits than Keith just shows that there were other finesse defencemen around. Keith, Rafalski, Ehrhoff,etc. At the same time you have to look at PIMs.

Lidstrom topped at 50 PIM in 2005-06 when the tougher application of obstruction rules were introduced which means previously there was a bit more to his finesse.

Quackenbush had miniscule PIMs, only 95 in over 700 career games, Kelly and Tremblay were well below Lidstrom numbers as well.

Has anyone ever questioned if there were other non-physical "finesse" defenseman around? The real point is has there ever been one as dominant as Lidstrom, who used hockey IQ, anticipation, and skill to defend and dominate.

Do you remember the start of the season after the lockout? Everyone had to adapt to the rule changes and the amount of "obstruction" penalties was strange to watch. Lidstrom got accustomed to the old rules like everyone else so he had to adapt and change like everyone else, even at his age. He won the Norris the 3 seasons after the lockout so I'm not sure what your point is.

Check the Soviet/Czech thread about scoring in minor and major tournaments. The Swedes and Finish players are ignored yet they would have been factors in the O? or NHL hockey.

O6, 1954 to 1960, key Soviets were well into their thirties. International teams had problems playing reinstated NHLers like Sid Smith, John Henderson, J.P.Lamirande.

1958 WHC:

1958 Ice Hockey World Championships - Wikipedia

Combined Sweden and Finland lost 34-2 to Canada yet such players could have influenced the NHL? Sven Tumba deserved a chance post his 5 game Amateur tryout with Quebec in 1957 but let's not go overboard.

This again? You've been corrected by myself and others several times about this. This is not the point and you must know it by now. It's akin to admitting it by now because you try so hard to spin away from the actual point of the NHL talent pool expanding because other countries actually started producing elite players who join the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It seems when Kelly is pointed out as having better offensive numbers than Harvey you like to say he played some forward, and earlier than people here realize, but in this case you claim it was later. Convenient.



Has anyone ever questioned if there were other non-physical "finesse" defenseman around? The real point is has there ever been one as dominant as Lidstrom, who used hockey IQ, anticipation, and skill to defend and dominate.

Do you remember the start of the season after the lockout? Everyone had to adapt to the rule changes and the amount of "obstruction" penalties was strange to watch. Lidstrom got accustomed to the old rules like everyone else so he had to adapt and change like everyone else, even at his age. He won the Norris the 3 seasons after the lockout so I'm not sure what your point is.



This again? You've been corrected by myself and others several times about this. This is not the point and you must know it by now. It's akin to admitting it by now because you try so hard to spin away from the actual point of the NHL talent pool expanding because other countries actually started producing elite players who join the NHL.

Kelly and Marcel Pronovost were a pairing, Kelly's deployment is a work in progress but as Kelly played more as a forward the AS and Norris voting shifted to Pronovost. So later is the evolving description.

The dominate part is the hang-up. Lidstrom did not dominate any more than Quackenbush whose prime and peak was before the Norris. 5 time AST, 49 Byng - 0 PIM in a 60 game season.

2005-06 season, explain why Pronger's PIMs went down if all had to adjust.

Who are these others especially since in the same paragraph you shift from the deeper talent pool to an expanding talent pool closer to my views. Care to put a date on the start of this expanding talent pool.

 

[danincanada]

Kelly and Marcel Pronovost were a pairing, Kelly's deployment is a work in progress but as Kelly played more as a forward the AS and Norris voting shifted to Pronovost. So later is the evolving description.

The dominate part is the hang-up. Lidstrom did not dominate any more than Quackenbush whose prime and peak was before the Norris. 5 time AST, 49 Byng - 0 PIM in a 60 game season.

2005-06 season, explain why Pronger's PIMs went down if all had to adjust.

Who are these others especially since in the same paragraph you shift from the deeper talent pool to an expanding talent pool closer to my views. Care to put a date on the start of this expanding talent pool.

Quackenbush was just as dominant as Lidstrom? Okay, if you say so.

Pronger got a lot of penalties for slashing and crossing the line. We would have to look at what his penalties were for to see if he avoided the obstruction calls or just played cleaner overall that season. Obviously not everyone’s PIM’s increased but overall the league saw a large increase in PP’s due to obstruction. Lidstrom had a lot more minor penalties but he also benefited from more PP opportunities, which is why he had a career high in points.

Who were the other countries that started providing elite talent to the NHL? You don’t know that the Swedes started coming over in the 70’s, more elite Americans came in the late 70’s and early 80’s, the Finns and Czech’s came in the 80’s, and finally the Soviets in the early 90’s? After that we saw even more increases from the Americans to this day along with contributions from the Germans, Swiss, Slovenians, and Danes.

It’s a whole different landscape now but there is no specific date for it, the sport started at some point and grew and evolved like you and I. Like a body of water when it expanded it became deeper and the volume increased. If this is your view than you are agreeing with me.

You have so much knowledge about the history of hockey but you don’t seem to want to apply it when it doesn’t suit your desires.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quackenbush was just as dominant as Lidstrom? Okay, if you say so.

Pronger got a lot of penalties for slashing and crossing the line. We would have to look at what his penalties were for to see if he avoided the obstruction calls or just played cleaner overall that season. Obviously not everyone’s PIM’s increased but overall the league saw a large increase in PP’s due to obstruction. Lidstrom had a lot more minor penalties but he also benefited from more PP opportunities, which is why he had a career high in points.

Who were the other countries that started providing elite talent to the NHL? You don’t know that the Swedes started coming over in the 70’s, more elite Americans came in the late 70’s and early 80’s, the Finns and Czech’s came in the 80’s, and finally the Soviets in the early 90’s? After that we saw even more increases from the Americans to this day along with contributions from the Germans, Swiss, Slovenians, and Danes.

It’s a whole different landscape now but there is no specific date for it, the sport started at some point and grew and evolved like you and I. Like a body of water when it expanded it became deeper and the volume increased. If this is your view than you are agreeing with me.

You have so much knowledge about the history of hockey but you don’t seem to want to apply it when it doesn’t suit your desires.

Just as suspected, blowing smoke. Nothing during O6 era - overlooking Sven Tumba in 1957 and Ulf Sterner in 1964, About 10 years late on the Czechs and Finns, by the mid 70s. Americans early 1960s.

Facilitated by the 1969 IIHF rule changes. So no impact on the O6 era.