Now when Lidstrom got his 5th norris, how far can he climb?

12# Peter Bondra

Registered User
Apr 15, 2004
8,688
0
European NHL-ers, "Career Value" (Total "HHOF Monitor" Points; Seasons 1917-18/2005-06)

#|Player|Country|POS|Career|Seasons|"HHOF Monitor" PTS
1|Jaromir "Jags" Jagr |Czech|RW|1990-06|15|3546,00
2|Dominik "The Dominator" Hasek |Czech|G|1990-06|14|2585,00
3 | Nicklas "Lidas" Lidstrom | Sweden | D | 1991-06 | 14 | 2276,05
4|Jari "The Flying Finn" Kurri |Finland|RW|1980-98|17|1984,00
5|Teemu "The Finnish Flash" Selanne |Finland|RW|1992-06|13|1585,50
6|Peter "Foppa" Forsberg |Sweden|C|1994-06|11|1505,50
7|Sergei "FedEx" Fedorov |Russia|C|1990-06|15|1449,50
8|Pavel "The Russian Rocket" Bure |Russia|RW|1991-06|12|1221,00
9|Markus "Nazzy" Naslund |Sweden|LW|1993-06|12|1161,00
10|Mats "Sudden" Sundin |Sweden|C|1990-06|15|1077,50

No Stastny?
 

pnep

Registered User
Mar 10, 2004
2,907
1,184
Novosibirsk,Russia
No Stastny?

European NHL-ers, "Career Value" (Total "HHOF Monitor" Points; Seasons 1917-18/2005-06)

#|Player|Country|POS|Career|Seasons|"HHOF Monitor" PTS
11|Alexander "Alexander The Great" Mogilny |Russia|RW|1989-06|16|1046,50
12|Borje "King" Salming |Sweden|D|1973-74|17|957,40
13 | Peter "Peter The Great" Stastny | Slovakia | C | 1980-81 | 15 | 900,00
14|Peter "Bonzai" Bondra |Slovakia|RW|1990-06|15|822,50
15|Esa "The Grate One" Tikkanen |Finland|LW|1984-85|15|749,50
16|Alexei "Yash" Yashin |Russia|C|1993-06|11|738,50
17|Daniel "Alfie" Alfredsson |Sweden|RW|1995-06|10|682,00
18|Patrik "Patty" Elias |Czech|LW|1995-06|10|638,50
19|Igor "The Professor" Larionov |Russia|C|1989-90|14|598,50
20|Milan "The Duke" Hejduk |Czech|RW|1998-06|7|594,50
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
Okay I admit it wasn't fair. Doug Harvey was great but Lidstrom has played in a more competitive era. Can anyone argue against that?

Define "competitive". To me a competitive era features consistently high quality, with little spread betweeen the best and worst players. This makes it hard for all-time greats (like Harvey and Lidstrom) to dominant weak opposition.

This chart shows the standard deviation in players' scoring over time (measured by points per game, for NHL regulars only). Therefore it measure the spread in talent, at the individual level, in different eras.

competition.JPG


The average during Harvey's 7 Norris wins was 0.28. The average during Lidstrom's 5 Norris wins was, coincidentally, 0.28. This means that the spread or variance in talent was equal in both eras. Lidstrom and his peers had better equipment and training, but the depth in the talent pool was the same in both eras.
 

12# Peter Bondra

Registered User
Apr 15, 2004
8,688
0
Well considering the years he played in he would've had few award winning votes. Or top scoring finishes which I think is what the system measures.
But to be behind Mogilny (who I knew had 76 goals once) is a bit weird.

On the other hand, Bondra being 14 is good :D.
 

pnep

Registered User
Mar 10, 2004
2,907
1,184
Novosibirsk,Russia
Player|Alexander "Alexander The Great" Mogilny|Peter "Peter The Great" Stastny
Country|Russia|Slovakia
Career|1989-06|1980-95
Seasons|16|15
POS|RW|C
Adj. G|488|371
Adj. PTS|1078|1019
Adj. PO PTS|89|95
CUP|1|0
FINAL|1|0
All Star Games|4|6
BYNG|1|0
SECOND ALL STAR TEAM |2|0
CALDER|0|1
TOP 10,Goals|3|0
#1 Goals|1|0
TOP 10, PTS|2|6
Runner Up, PTS|0|1
 

SniperTom

Registered User
Sep 13, 2005
142
1
My list would put Lidström at 8:

1 Orr
2 Shore
3 Harvey
4 Bourque
5 Kelly
6 Potvin
7 Pilote
8 Lidström

I can´t say that I have seen much of North American bias on this site. And I think It is a great honor for Lidas to be mentioned in this company. I would put him as the greatest Swedish player of all time.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Here are a couple of questions regarding Lidstrom.

1) Can he reach Doug Harvey's 7 Norris Trophies?
2) Can he actually become the 2nd best defenseman alltime? (after Orr)
3) Can he become the best european player ever in the NHL

1) If Lidstrom play 5 more seasons he might do it.
2) If Lidstrom win 1 more cup, maybe a hart and a couple of more norris, then this is a yes.
3) Yes he can.


1. Quite possible. Depends on how well he ages. IMO, his biggest competition for the next few years will be Pronger.

2. Doubtful, but i could see him as top 5. I already have him above Bourque (I know many will disagree, but Lidstrom has a better playoff resume than Bourque by a decent margin) and I could see him ending up comparable to Potvin and Robinson.

3. Its really a competition between Lidstrom at D, Hasek at goalie, and Jagr at forward. I tend to lean towards Lidstrom as the best of the bunch, but I could see cases made for the other two.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,132
Regina, SK
I think he's cracked the top 8 all-time for sure, if not top 6.
Orr
Harvey
Shore
(those 3 are set) - the rest become a little more difficult, we see players who could go ahead or behind him depending on opinion.

Lidstrom
Bourque
Robinson
Potvin
Chelios
 

Masao

Registered User
Nov 24, 2002
11,052
401
masaohf.atspace.com
The problem with Lidstrom is not that he's European, it's that he's playing today. Lots of people here have a huge nostalgic bias toward past players.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
The problem with Lidstrom is not that he's European, it's that he's playing today. Lots of people here have a huge nostalgic bias toward past players.
I get it. If you think Harvey & Shore are better than you have a nostalgic bias but if you favor Lindstrom you are not biased.
 

Granlund2Pulkkinen*

Guest
I would rank Lidstrom 3rd all time... behind Orr and Bourque...

Lidstrom is a great great great leader that percerveirs.
 

ck26

Alcoholab User
Jan 31, 2007
11,892
2,035
Coyotes Bandwagon
Define "competitive". To me a competitive era features consistently high quality, with little spread betweeen the best and worst players. This makes it hard for all-time greats (like Harvey and Lidstrom) to dominant weak opposition.

This chart shows the standard deviation in players' scoring over time (measured by points per game, for NHL regulars only). Therefore it measure the spread in talent, at the individual level, in different eras.

The average during Harvey's 7 Norris wins was 0.28. The average during Lidstrom's 5 Norris wins was, coincidentally, 0.28. This means that the spread or variance in talent was equal in both eras. Lidstrom and his peers had better equipment and training, but the depth in the talent pool was the same in both eras.
That is a cool chart, but it provides zero evidence that the talent level in the NHL was the same in Doug Harvey's era and Nick Lidstrom's era.

That chart shows PPG for NHL regulars (what is that, BTW?) ... I would argue that chart shows the relationship between the talent of goaltenders and time (higher numbers = less talent in goal) ... and how do you account for those stupid threads that crop up from time to time "What if Gretzky played defense?!" Maybe one year in atom, they told all the good kids to play defense. There's no change in talent, just how it's being used. What if all the coaches in the league decided, "Defense, defense, defense!" and started playing trapping hockey. No change in talent, but goals will go way down.

What if Lidstrom, Harvey, Orr, Shore, Robinson, Potvin, Stevens, Park, Bourque and Chelios were all playing in 1965 ... a million other variables aside, stands to reason goal scoring would be down, but by your logic, that means there's less talent ... and it's ... easier (?) to win a Norris because there's less talent?

I don't think it's possible to quantify an era's talent relative to anything except itself. Doing better than that would require a time-machine to extract the '77 Habs from antiquity and put them on the ice against the '07 Ducks.

I like your definition, but I'd rather have there be talent parity between teams, not individual players.

PS: For the record, the '77 Habs at 60 could beat the '07 Ducks 4 games to 2.
 

NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS

Registered User
Feb 28, 2006
13,542
5,771
The problem with Lidstrom is not that he's European, it's that he's playing today. Lots of people here have a huge nostalgic bias toward past players.

I'd say in most lists its the opposite.

Orr
Harvey
Shore
Bourque
Lidstrom
Potvin
Robinson

5 of the top 7 are quite modern players. Note that list isnt in any order but generally any list of the best includes all of those guys in the top 10. Others, even like Park or Chelios you do see some debate over.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
I would rank Lidstrom 3rd all time... behind Orr and Bourque...

Lidstrom is a great great great leader that percerveirs.

There's just no way that Lidstrom has had a better career to date than Eddie Shore and Doug Harvey.
 

#66

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
11,585
7
Visit site
Wow Potvin gets no respect!?! IMO he's pretty much on par with Bourque but what makes Potvin jump ahead is his mean and nasty play. IMO he's the 2nd best defenseman I've ever seen play. Also IMO his game was more complete than Orr's. Thats not saying he was a better defenseman but I think Bobby Orr's defense has gotten over-rated over the years.

Orr is still my pick for the best player to lace 'em up though.
 

Transported Upstater

Guest
Wow Potvin gets no respect!?! IMO he's pretty much on par with Bourque but what makes Potvin jump ahead is his mean and nasty play. IMO he's the 2nd best defenseman I've ever seen play. Also IMO his game was more complete than Orr's. Thats not saying he was a better defenseman but I think Bobby Orr's defense has gotten over-rated over the years.

Orr is still my pick for the best player to lace 'em up though.

IMO, just as Shore and Harvey are #2a and #2b, Bourque and Potvin are #3a and #3b.
 

canucksfan

Registered User
Mar 16, 2002
43,788
9,433
British Columbia
Visit site
Wow Potvin gets no respect!?! IMO he's pretty much on par with Bourque but what makes Potvin jump ahead is his mean and nasty play. IMO he's the 2nd best defenseman I've ever seen play. Also IMO his game was more complete than Orr's. Thats not saying he was a better defenseman but I think Bobby Orr's defense has gotten over-rated over the years.

Orr is still my pick for the best player to lace 'em up though.

I am one of the few people that have Potvin ahead of Bourque. I have Potvin fourth all time behind Orr, Shore and Harvey. He could do everything. One of the best offensive defencemen ever and one of the best defensvie defencemen ever. Potvin like you said was nasty to play against which is a huge assest for a defencemen.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
That chart shows PPG for NHL regulars (what is that, BTW?) ... I would argue that chart shows the relationship between the talent of goaltenders and time (higher numbers = less talent in goal) ... and how do you account for those stupid threads that crop up from time to time "What if Gretzky played defense?!" Maybe one year in atom, they told all the good kids to play defense. There's no change in talent, just how it's being used. What if all the coaches in the league decided, "Defense, defense, defense!" and started playing trapping hockey. No change in talent, but goals will go way down.

To clarify, it shows the spread in PPG for NHL players. Spread is measured by standard deviation. If there's a big spread, that means that there are a lot of relatively good players who beat up on relatively weak players. You see this in the first few years of the NHL and a bit in the late 70s due to the WHA. If there's a low spread (like in the 30s, the Original Six era and parts of the 90s), it means that there is a high-quality talent pool and a relatively small difference between the best and the worst players. Since we're looking at the spread in offense, it doesn't matter if it's a high or low-scoring year.

If a player has a good year in a season with low spread in scoring, he was probably up against a consistently strong level of competition. A Hart or Norris (etc.) in a league where there are few weak players is more impressive than a similar accolade in a league with lots of weak players (ie during WW2).
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
I have Lidstrom as the defenseman with the 9th greatest career of all time and he is 2nd (behind Jagr) for the title of greatest European career of all time (non-goalies).
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
14
No Bandwagon
Visit site
I'm not calling out anyone.

I just think it's a bit off to talk in absolutes when we've never seen Shore play a season... I don't think it's much of a question that there are more high-talent players than there were 70 years ago.

Shore might have been better than Lidstrom or Lidstrom might be better than Shore was, even compared to their peers.
Lidstrom not only won 5 Norris trophies but also finished runner-up ... what... 3 or 4 times - at least two of which he could/should have won.
And Shore won 4 Hart trophies. And I've never seen him play.

Awards can always be disputed. And most of the time they are. Why Pronger got it in 2000 and not Jagr, why Theodore not Iginla in 2002 (both Jagr and iginla won the Paersson awards in those years), etc etc etc.

I can't judge based on 4 awards Shore won. It's not like Lidstrom couldn't fill out a room with him hardware.

I don't think there's a NA bias, but I do think people tend to rely to much on nostalgia and most of all, I just think talking in absolutes in cases such as this is ridiculous.

Lidstrom >> Shore or SHore >> Lidstrom, I don't care. There simply isn't comparing them.
Unless there's someone here born in 1910 who'll take into account the changes to the game and level of competition, any comparison can be brushed aside.
1) If you can't compair, then why discuss threads about player comparison?

2)There is a big difference between Best Defenceman and MVP. Lidstrom has proven to be notably better than his defensive peers. Shore proved to be notably better than all other hockey players. This is overcomming the bias that Hart is voted on by the media, and Shore was a ****ing *******, so, logically, voters outside of Boston wouldn't be voting for him for any reason other than him earning it.

Based on my understanding, he gained the most all-star team votes, the defacto Norris trophy, 7 times over 10 seasons, his 1st four years there were no all-star teams.

Looking at those four years.
26-27-3rd in scoring amongst d-men, 2nd in league in PiM.
27-28-3rd in scoring amongst d-men, 1st in league in PiM.
28-29-1st in scoring amongst d-men, 3rd in PiM.
29-30-2nd in scoring amongst d-men, 3rd in PiM.

So another it is within the realm of possibility that he wins another Norris.

3) There are more higher talented players now, but they are also more teams. There were, on average, 8.786 teams during Shore's career, 27.4 during Lidstrom's career. Thusly, while we all accept that there is more talent now, is there 3.119 times more talent now? That is debateable. Keeping in mind, that while, for a long while many talented players opted out of pro-hockey because other careers were more profitable, Shore played primarily during the Great Depression, where, for most of the population, there wasn't the oppertunity to get a better job than pro-hockey. Which explains why it has one of the lowest standard deviations of production of any era in history, if not the lowest. So while there might be 3-4 times the talent now than there was in the 20's or 40's, the same is probably not true of the 30's.

4) If differences in era and the difficulty accounting for them means a zero time Hart winner could be better than a 4 time Hart winner, then, would you accept that Ching Johnson, Sylvio Mantha or Lionel Conacher could possibly be better than Lidstrom? You haven't seen them play, therefore, it is logically possible that the late 20's early 30's were a golden age of defensive brilliance and the 5th best is clearly better than the best now.

The problem with Lidstrom is not that he's European, it's that he's playing today. Lots of people here have a huge nostalgic bias toward past players.

1) Nostalgia cannot occur unless it was experienced. While I could be biassed, I cannot be nostalgic about the 1930's.

2) People say this, but there is no evidence what-so-ever of a history bias on anything but a case by case basis. In most, if not all, discussions about all-time greats, there is a huge bias towards the modern.

3) There is in some circles an original 6 bias, but, there is absolutly no pre-O6 bias. Most people don't even know who Frank Nighbor or Eddie Gerard are, let alone that they were once concidered some of the all-time best.

Hockey is a sport and fandom that has a tendancy to canabalize the past, not idiolize it.

The only people who say this are those who have a glaring modern bias. What is your basis for saying this other than disagreeing with opinions of those who aren't ignorant of the past?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->