Konstantinov's Underrated Offense

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
THE RED SHARK NASTY VLADIMIR KONSTANTINOV PUTS BITE IN THE RED WINGS AS THEY BATTLE THE FLYERS FOR THE STANLEY CUP

Rather than continually pollute the prospect thread, with tales about two long-gone players, I've started a new thread.
Jkuts disagreed with my contention that in 1996, Konstantinov was the best defenseman in the game. Jkuts went on to say that Vladdie wasn't the best defender on his team, let alone the best in the NHL.

I'm not sure how old Jkuts is. But any Red Wings fan who was old enough to appreciate the importance of toughness in 1990s hockey understands what Vladdie meant to this team.
He was a tiger. He was the heart and soul of the Red Wings defense.

Lidstrom, great as he was, was never really highly thought of as a defensive player until Bowman shocked the NHL and lined up Lidstrom-Murphy against the Legion of Doom line in 1997.

Konstantinov was considered one of the best defensive defenseman in the NHL.

At the same time, his offense was underrated because Fedorov and Lidstrom and Coffey and even Fetisov played the PP points. Konstantinov played the PK.

Here are the even-strength stats for Lidstrom and Konstantinov over the course of Vladdie's career. Keep in mind that Vladdie and Lidstrom were rookies the same year. And before you say that Lidstrom was a young rookie, not an old rookie, keep in mind that some of Lidstrom's best even strength production of his career came in those first 3 years.

You tell me who's who:
48 goals 107 assists - 155 points
34 goals 113 assists - 147 points

Hint: The top one is Vladdie.

While Coffey and Lidstrom racked up powerplay points on one of the greatest PPs ever assembled, Konstantinov played the PK.

Konstantinov was a beast.
In 1996, when he went +60, no other defenseman in the league was in the same universe (Fetisov was +37. Leschysyn +31).

This isn't to say that Vladdie would have been the better NHL defense than Lidstrom. But in 1996 - Vladdie was the best defenseman on the Red Wings and, IMO, in the NHL.
We saw Lidstrom's rise to dominance. His peak was probably 00-03 -- aged 29-32... a good age for defesemen.

Konstantinov was cut down at age 29-30, sadly.

Guy was 5'11 and played like he was 6'4. He could turn a game on it's ear with a hit and read the play, offensively and defensively, as a good as any defenseman I ever saw.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KingTrouty

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Oh look. Yet another thread using selective advanced stats.

Those are very similar ES numbers. And yet Lidstrom had twice the total points scored. A point is a point is a point, and PK talent certainly isn't worth any more than PP talent. (Otherwise, you wouldn't see a disproportionate amount of highly paid players on the man advantage, and grinders on the PK.)

If you want to say that 16 was more valuable overall that season than 5, go ahead. But part of your original claim was that Vladdy was the best defenseman in the NHL that year, and there's just no way that's true. Best defensive defenseman? Ok. But that's one facet of the position, not the whole equation.
 

SirKillalot

Registered User
Feb 27, 2008
5,863
274
Norway
If you want to say that 16 was more valuable overall that season than 5, go ahead. But part of your original claim was that Vladdy was the best defenseman in the NHL that year, and there's just no way that's true. Best defensive defenseman? Ok. But that's one facet of the position, not the whole equation.

In 5 and a half seasons, Konstantinov had a combined +185, without never scoring more than 38 points in one season. I would definitely say he was the best defensive defenseman. Regarding that 1996-season he has a case for being the best overall. I don't think anyone would be hugely surprised if he would have won it. Compared to Lidstrom. Lidstrom had 67 points and were a +29. Konstantinov 34 points and a +60. It's an absurd difference. It depends what one value. Overall both could have won it, neither did. That being said, there were several other good candidates who were more well-known and been in contention for this award several times. Often it takes some years to get notice. Also Detroit had 3 among the top 6 voted. That also hurt each of them's chances in some ways.

Konstantinov was the perfect 2nd pair defenseman. Or 3rd defenseman who could play 2nd defenseman or 1st defenseman on worse teams. Sort of like Kronwall for a while. Others similar could be Seabrook, Stuart or Hjalmarsson in their peaks (neither of them as good, for instance the last two could never be 1st defensemen).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMule93

TheOtherOne

Registered User
Jan 2, 2010
8,265
5,257
Oh look. Yet another thread using selective advanced stats.

Those are very similar ES numbers. And yet Lidstrom had twice the total points scored. A point is a point is a point, and PK talent certainly isn't worth any more than PP talent. (Otherwise, you wouldn't see a disproportionate amount of highly paid players on the man advantage, and grinders on the PK.)

If you want to say that 16 was more valuable overall that season than 5, go ahead. But part of your original claim was that Vladdy was the best defenseman in the NHL that year, and there's just no way that's true. Best defensive defenseman? Ok. But that's one facet of the position, not the whole equation.
Even strength production is "selective advanced stats"? Holy shit then I guess we better get rid of all the "advanced stats" once and for all and report only win percentage. Wouldn't want to overly complicate things with facts in context.
 

Roy S

Registered User
May 16, 2009
2,124
70
He was amazing and HOF quality. Its a shame. He was a top 5 defenseman prior to the crash. I don't think he would have aged as gracefully as Lidstrom did though due to his style of play taking more of a toll on his body so Lidstrom still likely would have ended up having the better overall career.
 

kliq

Registered User
Dec 17, 2017
2,727
1,319
It was very grudging respect. A Russian who went out and gave as good as he got didn't seem to go down well with a lot of North Americans.

I'm Canadian, so I can't say that was felt here.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
Oh look. Yet another thread using selective advanced stats.

Those are very similar ES numbers. And yet Lidstrom had twice the total points scored. A point is a point is a point, and PK talent certainly isn't worth any more than PP talent. (Otherwise, you wouldn't see a disproportionate amount of highly paid players on the man advantage, and grinders on the PK.)

If you want to say that 16 was more valuable overall that season than 5, go ahead. But part of your original claim was that Vladdy was the best defenseman in the NHL that year, and there's just no way that's true. Best defensive defenseman? Ok. But that's one facet of the position, not the whole equation.

Advanced stats?
What are you even talking about.

Even strength stats are advanced?

You can't compare Konstantinov's stats to Lidstrom's stats when one guy plays PK and the other the PP.
So apples to apples - even strength stats.

Again, how old were you in 1996? Were you old enough to know what people were writing and saying about Konstantinov and why he didn't win the Norris that year?
 

Winger98

Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
22,756
4,569
Cleveland
I'm Canadian, so I can't say that was felt here.

I remember a lot of talk about Vladdy and how "dirty" he was while folks would then turn around and praise how "gritty" a guy like Chelios was or how physical Stevens was, etc. Vladdy would get his praise, they couldn't not praise him at some point, but you could rely on someone on national telecasts or the CBC to bring it back around to how questionable this hit was or how he gave some guy an unnecessarily high cross check in the corners, or whatever. At some point they would reliably highlight the dirty Russian.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Even strength production is "selective advanced stats"? Holy **** then I guess we better get rid of all the "advanced stats" once and for all and report only win percentage. Wouldn't want to overly complicate things with facts in context.
I have zero issue with using any particular stat as part of evidence to support a claim.

I take major issue with pretending that only even strength production counts towards the value of a player.

Same deal with P/60, or +/-, or any other stat. If it's part of the puzzle, that's AOK. But if it's held up all by itself, that's a very flawed argument.

Not to mention the thread title is about his underrated offense, but the content goes on to focus on his defense.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
I have zero issue with using any particular stat as part of evidence to support a claim.

I take major issue with pretending that only even strength production counts towards the value of a player.

Same deal with P/60, or +/-, or any other stat. If it's part of the puzzle, that's AOK. But if it's held up all by itself, that's a very flawed argument.

How do you compare the offense of a guy who plays the PP vs the guy who doesn't?
 

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,870
6,955
How do you compare the offense of a guy who plays the PP vs the guy who doesn't?

certainly not by giving one of them the benefit of the doubt against one of the better PP performers of the league

if two guys are similar at even strength and one of them is also one of the best on the powerplay then that second guy is better offensively full stop regardless of chances given on the powerplay

actually doing things matters
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkutswings

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
certainly not by giving one of them the benefit of the doubt against one of the better PP performers of the league

if two guys are similar at even strength and one of them is also one of the best on the powerplay then that second guy is better offensively full stop regardless of chances given on the powerplay

actually doing things matters

You told me how you wouldn't compare the two.

How would you compare them? Or do you just automatically assume one is better because, you know, whatever.
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
Advanced stats?
What are you even talking about.

Even strength stats are advanced?

You can't compare Konstantinov's stats to Lidstrom's stats when one guy plays PK and the other the PP.
So apples to apples - even strength stats.
Flawed.

Each player had his assignments, based on his respective skill set. There's nothing wrong with using ES as part of the comparison, but you don't say one guy built a better house than the other, just because his framing job is marginally better (despite the other guy blowing him out of the water on the finishing work, for example).


Again, how old were you in 1996? Were you old enough to know what people were writing and saying about Konstantinov and why he didn't win the Norris that year?
So the same fan that thinks the media is bought and paid for by the team, wants to use media coverage as evidence? And whether I was 2 or 62 at the time has no relevance, when I'm using the statistics of ES points (relatively even) versus total points (Lidstrom by a landslide). Those numbers haven't changed since then, even if I had never even heard of the Detroit Red Wings until this morning.

When a team wins, it doesn't matter if that winning play came at even strength, on the power play, or short handed. THEY WON. And those goals and assists don't count any less on the scoreboard if they're on special teams.

Vladdy was a very very good defenseman. And I can understand different people valuing different aspects, which leads then to appreciating him more than Nick in that particular season. But a guy who comes in 4th in the voting, with 24% of the vote, isn't the best.

And if we really wanna geek out over stats, look at OPS/DPS/PS for 16 & 5:

1995-96 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

Nick was 7th in OPS, 2nd in DPS, and 2nd in overall PS. Vladdy was 13th in OPS, 1st in DPS, and 6th in overall PS. Which means that they estimate Lidstrom helped the team more overall. Again, reasonable to debate amongst the two, but not as either being #1 in the league. (Really, if anybody got robbed, it's Ray Bourque.)
 

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,870
6,955
You told me how you wouldn't compare the two.

How would you compare them? Or do you just automatically assume one is better because, you know, whatever.

the one that played and did well on the powerplay deserves credit for doing so regardless of whether or not the other one also played there

that's proven ability right there and should absolutely count for something
 

jkutswings

hot piss hockey
Jul 10, 2014
10,851
8,576
You told me how you wouldn't compare the two.

How would you compare them? Or do you just automatically assume one is better because, you know, whatever.
So Glendening might be better on the power play than Mantha, because we haven't seen him play there? C'mon. Nick got the gig - and kept it - because he was the best at the job, and maintained a very high level of success at it.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
So Glendening might be better on the power play than Mantha, because we haven't seen him play there? C'mon. Nick got the gig - and kept it - because he was the best at the job, and maintained a very high level of success at it.



Since you've never answered the question, I'm going to assume you weren't really old enough to understand the impact of Konstantinov.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
the one that played and did well on the powerplay deserves credit for doing so regardless of whether or not the other one also played there

that's proven ability right there and should absolutely count for something

You didn't answer the question.

What measure do you use to compare offensive ability?

Second question: If Lidstrom was superior offensively, why does Konstantinov produce more at even strength?
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
So Glendening might be better on the power play than Mantha, because we haven't seen him play there? C'mon. Nick got the gig - and kept it - because he was the best at the job, and maintained a very high level of success at it.

I didn't say Konstantinov was better than Lidstrom on the powerplay.

So your rhetorical question doesn't follow.

My point using your Mantha vs Glendening point, would be this:

Mantha has 14 goals and 15 assists at even strength.
Glendening has 6 goals and 6 assists at even strength.

So disallowing Mantha's PP stats, we easily, safely and fairly assume that Mantha is far superior, offensively, to Glendening.
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Lidstrom, great as he was, was never really highly thought of as a defensive player until Bowman shocked the NHL and lined up Lidstrom-Murphy against the Legion of Doom line in 1997.

That's absolutely untrue. Unfortunately, Wayne State's archives aren't great for linking, but if you go here and search for Lidstrom, you'll find the following quotes:

Lidstrom might not be noticed by NHL fans, but players, coaches, scouts and executives know that Lidstrom is one of the most effective defensemen in the league.
“He’s maybe the most underrated defenseman in the NHL,” said New York Islanders scout Ken Morrow, a former NHL defenseman who won four Stanley Cups with the New York Islanders from 1980-83. “He does the same things, quietly, that the stars do.”
[...]
Ramsey marvels at Lidstrom’s outstanding foot work, which allows him to almost always beat an opposing forward coming down the wing.​

That article was written in 1995.

The article is a bit choppy, but it makes the point, clearly, that Lidstrom was getting significantly better as a defensive player, and that it was being widely noticed around the league.
 

Redder Winger

Registered User
May 4, 2017
3,700
730
That's absolutely untrue. Unfortunately, Wayne State's archives aren't great for linking, but if you go here and search for Lidstrom, you'll find the following quotes:

Lidstrom might not be noticed by NHL fans, but players, coaches, scouts and executives know that Lidstrom is one of the most effective defensemen in the league.
“He’s maybe the most underrated defenseman in the NHL,” said New York Islanders scout Ken Morrow, a former NHL defenseman who won four Stanley Cups with the New York Islanders from 1980-83. “He does the same things, quietly, that the stars do.”
[...]
Ramsey marvels at Lidstrom’s outstanding foot work, which allows him to almost always beat an opposing forward coming down the wing.​

That article was written in 1995.

The article is a bit choppy, but it makes the point, clearly, that Lidstrom was getting significantly better as a defensive player, and that it was being widely noticed around the league.

Widely noticed yet underrated.
You see the problem with that, right?
 

njx9

Registered User
Feb 1, 2016
2,161
340
Widely noticed yet underrated.
You see the problem with that, right?

Not in terms of the quote of yours that I responded to.

"Lidstrom, great as he was, was never really highly thought of as a defensive player until Bowman shocked the NHL and lined up Lidstrom-Murphy against the Legion of Doom line in 1997."

The bold is unequivocally untrue.

But hey, if you want to parse my words as narrowly as possible to try to contrive your way to still being right, that's on you. I don't want to play stupid games.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->