Why use adjusted stats when we have such large sample sizes of head to head to go on though and with Potvin, you can truck out the adjusted stats but that still doesn't change his top 10 LEAGUE finishes and they hardly make a dent in his playoff PPG advantage.
I have Bourque in 3rd and Lidstrom 4th overall actually. I used to have Shore in 3rd but after listening to the arguments, I moved him to 5th.
What's funny is I say Lidstrom is 4th overall...no problem, I say he is easily top 3 defensively...again no problem, I accurately reflect that Lidstrom is only middle of the pack offensively out of the top 20...suddenly I'm killing babies heh.
More funny stuff....we go through pages upon pages of Lidstrom pendants dismissing the advantages of team strength vs Bourque and then in this thread, it's one of the very first things used in favour of Lidstrom vs Potvin. C'mon, that's at least little funny right.
And just a little more...D-men who played in the 80's routinely get their offensive numbers diminished because they were augmented by the offensive times, weaker goaltending techniques and equipment yet Lidstrom's defensive prowess is left alone even though it is augmented by the defensive times, much better goaltending techniques and equipment.
I wonder what happens if Lidstrom's defensive numbers were adjusted to 80's values? Still think he ends up as far out in front of Bourque defensively as some have him?
Interesting thought no?
Exactly what defensive stats are we talking about? The only officially tracked stat that purports to represent a player's defensive ability is +/-. Historically, players who have been mediocre defensively have still been able to post insane +/- ratings because the years they had were crazy. A player's team also can largely influence the rating; a top defensive defenseman on the Blue Jackets will probably have a worse rating than the #6 defenseman on the Bruins. Playing more affects the rating, and who you play against affects it. Jonathan Ericsson and Brian Rafalski had solid +/- last year, while Lidstrom was a minus for the first time in his career - suggesting Lidstrom is far worse defensively. Anyone who watched the team will tell you how those numbers are completely opposite of reality.
As for points...
In Potvin's ten years from 75-76 through 84-85, he scored 770 points. In Lidstrom's ten years from 97-98 through 07-08, he scored 690 points. Not much of a difference there yet Potvin is supposed to be so much incredibly better offensively.
there are few examples of players who were flawless, Potvin might be one of them. He did everything well. I'd say Bobby Orr, Gordie Howe, Bryan Trottier, Bobby Clarke, Raymond Bourque maybe even Crosby - pretty flawless players. They play with intensity, great on offense, on defense,
Crosby... great on defense? Maybe... above average? Detroit has at least eight forwards who are better defensively than Crosby.
leaders, big-game players, winners at all levels, physical (Sid doesn't hit but is fearless and plays in traffic as well as anyone - recent injuries notwithstanding)
Lidstrom does hit and play physical, he's just not a *big* or *glamourous* hitter in the Scott Stevens/Dion Phaneuf sense. But people act like he's freaking Yan Golubovsky out there with his physical game.
Just because a player doesn't have any weaknesses though, doesn't mean he's the best player. Gretzky was a very flawed player who lacked a lot of attributes, but for what he did possess, he was off-the-charts better than anyone else - that counts.
You can be very good at everything, and still not be the best because someone else is so good at just one thing. Gretzky is not just an example, but the EMBODIMENT of that concept.
what does "perfect defensively" even mean though?
It means someone who never makes errors defensively. Ever. Who always makes the right play, and who is always in position. Someone who never gets out of position to throw a hit, and is always able to come up with the puck in the corners. Someone who takes away passing lanes very effectively, clears rebounds, and can eliminate net-front scoring threats even if out-muscled.
What player did I just describe? Nicklas Lidstrom. Doug Harvey is also a valid answer.
But what Lidstrom lacks is the ability to strike FEAR and INTIMIDATE the opposition, like Potvin did. Like Scott Stevens did. That element is something Lidstrom simply never had.
Ah yes, fear and intimidation. You take Belak, I'll take Hamhuis.
I heard Pat Quinn tell a story on Potvin (I believe in the '80 finals), how he was cracked over the head and bleeding and just lined up for the face-off with a focused, intense look on his blood-filled face. Players knew that going into the corner for a loose puck might mean they take an elbow to the jaw, or worse.
That element of what Potvin (and others) brought to the game, is valuable in a different way than what Lidstom does so well.
Granted, the game isn't played that way anymore but in Potvin's era, that intimidation level was worth as much as his skating, stickhandling and ability to run the power play.[/QUOTE]
See...I hate this line of thought. How can we justify taking away from Potvin's offensive numbers due to era when nobody will do the same for Lidstrom's defensive numbers.
Maybe Potvin's offense is a little inflated from playing in the highest offensive years in modern league history but aren't Lidstrom's defensive numbers also inflated from playing during the lowest scoring years in modern league history?
If you're not willing to concede both sides of this, then you can't use either IMO.
Besides, it's not just about the raw numbers with Potvin anyway. He has multiple top 10 LEAGUE finishes and lead his team in scoring for both the regular season and the playoffs.
Lidstrom never came close to accomplishing any of these things.
His highest league finish was 17th, followed by nothing better than 27th if I'm not mistaken and he rarely did better than 4th on his own team.
You're right of course.... I remember him as a guy who excelled on big ice with his skating more than in the NHL at the time... but, yeah, oops...
.
