Round 2, Vote 2 (2009 update)

[Canadiens Fan]

Head to head against defensemen where careers overlapped he suffers.

How so ???

Nine All-Star team's, Six Norris trophies, Conn Smythe Trophy, 4 Stanley Cups, 1 in plus/minus active, 6th best amongst defensemen all-time ....

Besides Bourque, whose overlapped career compares ???

 

[RabbinsDuck]

No my point is that Kelly had a physical side to his game that Lidstrom does not.

Not much more of one. And your evidence that Lidstrom's lack of physical play hurt his defensive game still comes down to one youtube clip.

The rest of your post is basic smoke and mirrors.We are not comparing to an era defined by Lidstrom's career. If you adjust for scoring then adjust for other factors as well. How many awards does Lidstrom win if he is competing against a Bobby Orr or a Doug Harvey?

How many does Kelly (or anyone) win against Orr? Where do you come up with these?

Lidstrom outscores Harvey by even more than Kelly, and like Kelly, would have fared decently against Harvey in voting -- even accepting Harvey's defensive game was better than both of them.

 

[Pear Juice]

Again Lidstrom only looks good with smoke and mirrors comparisons.
Head to head against defensemen where careers overlapped he suffers.

You still have not provided anything but a youtube example of him making a mistake. What's hidden behind your smoke? There are immense amounts of knowledgable experts, players and coaches claiming that what makes Lidström such a great defenseman is that he rarely does mistakes. You have to provide some actual facts if you're to claim the contrary.

 

[Reds4Life]

You still have not provided anything but a youtube example of him making a mistake. What's hidden behind your smoke? There are immense amounts of knowledgable experts, players and coaches claiming that what makes Lidström such a great defenseman is that he rarely does mistakes. You have to provide some actual facts if you're to claim the contrary.

Lidstrom is soft player. He is not willing to play physical game therefore he sucks

And his +/- is atrocious.

 

[God Bless Canada]

My list, I hate this part, the top 20 should be all generational talents, but, sadly, isn't yet. Go Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin!

1. Dominic Hasek: Inimitable generational talent. IMO, the definitive player of the dead puck era. Dominated games at a level no one else left could. Injuries at critical points of his career do hamper him, but not much at this point IMO.

2. Patrick Roy: Best big game player on the board, possibly ever. One stat alone explains my position. 151 playoff wins, second place is 98 wins. Having more than 50% more wins then second place is unreal statistical dominance.

3/4. Howie Morenz or Stan Mikita: A trademark peak vs longevity battle. At his best, Morenz was the NHL's 1st superstar and was irreplaceable in growing the sport in America. But, his dominance was inconsistent and ended young. Mikita on the other hand, was a peer of Hull, Howe and Beliveau for a decade. But, not able to prove himself better than them. But, they are all off the board now, so, he doesn't have to be better. Was a top notch player for probably twice as many years as Morenz, but, never changed the game. I'm torn.

5. Jacques Plante: Revolutionary goalie. Winner. Not a dominant force. But, he changed the game and won. Do you need more?

6. Niklas Lidstrom: The only player in NHL history who can invisibly dominate games. The second most efficient player ever. (After Gretzky) Critiquing his career on one bad play is as absurd as the Vote for Rory attack ads, and deserves no further comment.

7. Denis Potvin: The line between Potvin and Lidstrom is razor thin and much the same as Morenz vs Mikita. Potvin was better, Lidstrom did it longer. But, I've made up my mind here.

8. Red Kelly: The first non-generational talent IMO. But, his versatility excuses that. The more research I do, the more I can't explain Kelly over Cyclone Taylor, but, that's an argument for another day. His complete lack of flaws makes me comfortable listing him here.

9. Phil Esposito: He produced. Yes, there are questions about how much Orr helped. But his Hart votes over Orr help. I want to have him lower. But, he won some cups, had some great runs. And produced at an all-time great level.

10. Glenn Hall: His playoff resume is underrated. He failed to improve more than he faltered. And seeing as he is the 1st or 2nd best regular season goalie (Hasek is the disputer.) I fail to see that as a major problem.

11. Jaromir Jagr: This is where Hart shares begin to influence my research and voting. He's 4th, ahead of Hull, Beliveau and Richard. Now, it isn't a perfect measure, but, it says a lot. As does 5 scoring titles. 5 players have done that, 3 are top 4 all-time, there's only so much you can punish a player for being a moody ***** when he backs it up like that.

12. Terry Sawchuk: Now we really start to get into how a player hurts his team through their actions. If he had never touched a bottle, we may well be talking about whether or not he's better than Mario. But, he did touch the bottle. Often. He hurt himself. He hurt his team. He chose to undercut one of the greatest careers ever. But. He was still able to be phenomenal early in his career and he was able to remain good for an amazing length of time.

13. Bobby Clarke: It's worth noting that he peaked after '72 and definitely struggled more against very quick players. But. He was a leader, a warrior, a shutdown artist and a great playmaker. He's also the worst goal scoring forward in the top 50, possibly even the top 100.

14. Ted Lindsay: Once again I'll bring up Hart shares. A forward. his whole peak in the frame of the analysis. Doesn't even appear in the top 50. His Hart votes: 4th, 6th and 10th. And we're calling him a top 20 player of all time? I'm sorry. I've got a problem with that.

15. Guy Lafleur: How is Jagr punished for his mood swings and Lafleur not punished for his party lifestyle? In three years: 232gp 162g 224a 386pts. Gets drunk, speeds, crashes his car. The next three years: 185gp 81g 149a 230pts. That is how personality hurts a team. His goal scoring was literally halved by the choices he as an individual made. If we are to punish players for how they acted as a human being and how those actions hurt their teams ability to succeed. We start by punishing Guy Lafleur. He should be below Bill Cook.

Hart shares? Your argument against Lindsay is Hart shares? They're about as relevant as adjusted stats. Which means, they aren't relevant.

Keep a couple things in mind. One is that the Hart is awarded to the most valuable player in the league, not the best player in the league. There's a world of difference between the two. Just look at the 1989, 2000 or the 2002 Hart votes. We don't have a best player in the league trophy prior to expansion. And Lindsay is going to be punished in Hart voting because in his best years, he was not the best forward on his team, and it's very, very rare for two forwards on the team to be high in Hart voting. (2001 is an exception, but that year, the Pens had the top scorer, and then they had Mario, the real league MVP).

It almost seems some of you guys want to punish players for being pivotal contributors on great teams.

When Guy Lafleur's magical six-year run came to an end in 1980, he was 28. Most players from the 70s Habs dyansty really saw their numbers tumble once they turned 30. Obvious reason for it, too. You play on a dynasty, you play an extraordinary amount of hockey, especially in the playoffs. Lafleur did have very good numbers in 81 and 82, but he wasn't the same player as he was from 74-75 to 79-80.

The guy, at his peak, was an absolute marvel to watch. He had such breathtaking skill, such natural instincts and creativity, but for me, the difference-maker for Lafleur is that he had such a big-game mentality, a flair for the dramatic. In a good way. He wanted to be on the ice in the biggest situations. When you look at his six-year peak, he scored at about 120-point clip in the post-season. It's quite incredible.

Would it have helped if he would have taken better care of his body? Probably. But reality is that most guys from the Habs dynasty really dipped in production, performance and prominence once they hit 30. And they weren't alone. Same goes for the guys from the Islanders and the Oilers dynasties (with the exception of Messier and Gretzky).

 

[God Bless Canada]

Kelly was not a very physical defenceman. He would have been scary if he wanted to be one - he was a Gold Gloves boxer. But he didn't play a physical game.

To me, what sets him apart is the offensive dimension. I think he's the third-best offensive defenceman of all-time. Behind Orr and Coffey. If he would have played in the 70s or the 80s, when defencemen were encouraged to join the rush, I think you're looking at a 100-120 point player per year. He was that good. That creative. He was putting up 17 goals at a time when six was an impressive number; 50 points when 30 was tremendous. (Bill Quackenbush, a very, very skilled defenceman, never had 30). And Kelly did it while playing tremendous hockey in his own zone.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ratelle / Esposito

+/- is a team stat.

For instance in 1986 Cam Neely was a -30 with Vancouver. The next season he was a +23 with Boston. Do you mean to tell me that he personally got "53 goals better defensively" that summer....?

Ratelle and Park brought their attributes to the Bruins and did not miss a step or see their +/- suffer. Esposito and Vadnais went to the Rangers replacing Park and Ratelle yet their +/- suffered significantly.

So there is a player factor when comparing like to like with teams that are not drastically different. Bruins two SC finals in the four seasons post trade, Rangers one.

Your Cam Neely analogy is far from complete. Barry Pederson went to Vancouver in the trade. Pederson was +19 with Boston but dropped to -13 with Vancouver. Net is a + 4 for Neely over Pederson's performance the previous season with the Bruins while Pederson was a net +17 over Neely's performance with the Canucks.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Links Please

You still have not provided anything but a youtube example of him making a mistake. What's hidden behind your smoke? There are immense amounts of knowledgable experts, players and coaches claiming that what makes Lidström such a great defenseman is that he rarely does mistakes. You have to provide some actual facts if you're to claim the contrary.

Bolded. Claim not supported by links

 

[seventieslord]

Fred "Cyclone" Taylor was mainly a defenseman / rover(seven man hockey) who moved up to center later in his career. His main contribution to hockey was his ability to skate backwards which defined how the defensemen of all future eras had to play the game.

His scoring is rather pedestrian by the standards of his era. 194 goals in 186 regular season games. Joe Malone and Newsy Lalonde had slightly better goals per game stats but none compared to Russell Bowie, 234 goals in 80 games or Frank McGee 71 goals in 23 games.

Wrong. He did not play in the same era as Russell Bowie and Frank McGee. Their careers barely overlapped.

Taylor was the third best goalscorer of the time, not too far behind Lalonde and Malone, and he was easily the best playmaker of the era. He led the PCHA in assists six times.

You're gonna say "but I have The Trail! There are no assists in there." but the NHL kept assists for some of those years covered, too. Coleman omitted all assists for simplicity. But the PCHA kept those stats throughout, as did the WCHL.

These aren't phantom stats - they exist. You're just using hockeydb which is highly incomplete. Try looking at hockey-reference or legendsofhockey or reading Total Hockey 2. Or, get an SIHR membership and get access to all the NHA/PCHA leaderboards and learn more about something you really need to learn more about.

Now you are assuming that goals do not matter. Forget the rankings which is a blatant attempt at smoke and mirrors.

Bottom line is that Larry Robinson at even strength was on the ice for a + 309 differential in goals over Niklas Lidstrom. This is huge.Contributes greatly to winning.

Just like Patrick Roy WON app 160 more regular season games and 86 more playoff games(2.36 times as much 151 vs 65) over his career when compared to Dominik Hasek.

Bottom line is "Which team won?" and Lidstrom and Hasek fall short with contributing reasons cited.

LOL. Being part of the best team in history had nothing to do with it. Gotcha.

I'd take the exact opposite view to be quite honest.

Well attested media reports until even 2002 have many reporters calling Yzerman the best Red Wings Player when he played. In fact, it was Yzerman who used to disagree with the words of reporters when he was referred to as the best player. Also Sergei Fedorov cannot be ignored until 2003, as he was always in the conversation. This despite Yzerman's best years clearly behind him by a decade.

I'm honestly surprised at Lidstrom's high ranking, relative not only to Defenseman but to Red Wings (this is from recent rankings of Top 10 Defenseman and Top 5 Red Wings).

Most people in Red Wings management (Holland, Devallano, Nill, Illitch) have categorically stated that Yzerman was the second greatest player the franchise has ever seen.

I think if you poll Red Wings fans who've watched the careers of both Players, Yzerman would come out ahead by some margin.

Then again, awards voting tends to be a major factor in the rankings on this board, and Lidstrom undoubtedly has a lot more honors to his name (though I will remind you that Yzerman has a better Hart record in a much more competitive time and also outdid Lidstrom in Hart voting when they played together at high levels during the Dead Puck Era - I am sure the obvious reply will be that the Hart has a Defensive bias, but consider that Lidstrom was able to outdo Datsyuk and Zetterberg recently).

At least from what I've seen, Yzerman at his best was a clearly superior player to Lidstrom at his best, and even during the late 1990's and early 2000's, when Lidstrom started contending for the Norris Trophy, I thought Yzerman was the better Player (Fedorov too).

Bottom line, Lidstrom is a far better defenseman than Yzerman was a forward. Yzerman had six elite seasons and would have been a four-time all-star if Gretzky and Lemieux didn't exist, Lidstrom has had 10+ elite seasons and is a nine-time all-star.

I can't believe +/- was actually brought up in an attempt to discredit Lidstrom.

Lidstrom, throught his career, blows away the entire NHL in +/- by a greater percentage than any other defenseman ever.

+409 Lidstrom
+282 Stevens (45%)
+279 Jagr (47%)
+255 Chelios (60%)

+730 Robinson
+592 Gretzky (23%)
+474 Clarke (54%)
+464 Trottier (57%)
+460 Potvin (59%)

+597 Orr
+482 Savard (24%)
+391 Lafleur (53%)
+387 Robinson (54%)

+528 Bourque
+518 Gretzky (2%)
+444 McCrimmon (19%)
+400 Howe (32%)

Potvin, Stevens, Chelios -- did not lead the NHL in cumulative +/- throughout their careers.

Lidstrom's team was more effective when Lidstrom was on the ice (compared to all his peers in the NHL at the time) than any other defenseman, throughout their careers.

:O

Those are pretty crazy figures!

I saw that a lot of you has Howie Morenz high on the list but none of you made a case for him (other than saying he was the first superstar). I think it would be interesting if someone compared him to the other centers available for voting.

I, too, would be interested to see this.

Among as-of-yet unranked centers, guys like Esposito, Mikita, Dionne and Ullman put together longer careers filled with more instances just as high on the leaderboards as Morenz did.

As the same time, there's something to be said for being the defining superstar of a generation. Among players who started their careers within a few years of 1920 like Morenz, only Cook can touch him. (and now I am starting to wonder how I had Cook down around 40th!)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Overlap

How so ???

Nine All-Star team's, Six Norris trophies, Conn Smythe Trophy, 4 Stanley Cups, 1 in plus/minus active, 6th best amongst defensemen all-time ....

Besides Bourque, whose overlapped career compares ???

Chelios, Stevens, Coffey and others. The tendency is to limit the comparison to the seasons of Lidstrom's career if the other player retired years ago even if he played some seasons during Lidstrom. But Lidstrom is granted the benefit of his full career.

1 In plus/minus active would be a prime example. All the ones with better +/- would have been number 1 active at some point in their active career but somehow only Lidstrom gets credit here. Not exactly being fair.

 

[Pear Juice]

Bolded. Claim not supported by links

"– Nicklas är som en supermänniska! Jo jo, allvarligt! Ibland undrar jag hur han klarar av att spela sÃ¥ oerhört mycket och ändÃ¥ nästan aldrig göra nÃ¥gra misstag. Han spelar lika bra varje match. Det är helt otroligt."

Translated: "Nicklas is a superhuman! I am serious! Sometimes I wonder how he can play so many games and still next to never make any mistakes. He's just as great in every game. It's amazing." - Igor Larionov in interview with swedish magazine Café. http://www.cafe.se/?id=2942

"(Lidstrom) is just about the perfect player on the ice, very few mistakes," - Scotty Bowman commenting his Conn Smythe trophy. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/cup02/2002-06-14-usat-cupline.htm

I've also seen/heard TV-people and announcers commenting on it countless times, which is obviously hard to find on the internet.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Kelly was not a very physical defenceman. He would have been scary if he wanted to be one - he was a Gold Gloves boxer. But he didn't play a physical game.

To me, what sets him apart is the offensive dimension. I think he's the third-best offensive defenceman of all-time. Behind Orr and Coffey. If he would have played in the 70s or the 80s, when defencemen were encouraged to join the rush, I think you're looking at a 100-120 point player per year. He was that good. That creative. He was putting up 17 goals at a time when six was an impressive number; 50 points when 30 was tremendous. (Bill Quackenbush, a very, very skilled defenceman, never had 30). And Kelly did it while playing tremendous hockey in his own zone.

Yeah. I am getting confused seeing quotes from other posters here labeling Kelly as physical. Kelly rarely played physical. In fact, when people ask who was the first defenseman to play a Lidstromesque style was, I often first think of Red Kelly.

Lidstrom outscores Harvey by even more than Kelly, and like Kelly, would have fared decently against Harvey in voting -- even accepting Harvey's defensive game was better than both of them.

Before you go all out taking my comments in an improper context, Ill just say this. I rank Lidstrom ahead of Red Kelly. Effectively because of his longevity edge(As usual)

Now, that Said...

Adjusting Lidstrom's stats to that era in that manner does not work. Defensemen back then rarely joined the rush even in the capacity that Lidstrom or his partners did in the dead puck era. Compensating for this while using adjusted stats is necessary.

This was an era when 30 points for a defenseman was an eye opening number for an excellent offensive season. Comparable to 60 points for a defenseman now.

Kelly was the best offensive defenseman ever after Orr and Coffey(And Possibly Shore), and Kelly also played a stay at home style to boot and he was very good at it. I fully expect that he would have been scoring 70-80 point seasons regularly in the dead puck era, while Harvey would have been scoring slightly below that, but slightly above Lidstrom.

You are selling them short by simply saying "Lidstrom's adjusted stats are better" and it is completely incorrect to begin with.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

1 In plus/minus active would be a prime example. All the ones with better +/- would have been number 1 active at some point in their active career but somehow only Lidstrom gets credit here. Not exactly being fair.

Not true, and I don't see your point. Due to overlapping career years, I believe that Trottier, for example, was never #1 among active players. Let's check out some stats for his career +/- (please note that these are not actual career numbers, rather numbers for the selected time periods)

Years |+/- |Active leader |+/-
1967-68 to 1975-76 |28 |Bobby Orr |589
1975-76 to 1980-81 |264 |Larry Robinson |375
1975-76 to 1985-86 |475 |Larry Robinson |531
1975-76 to 1990-91 |475 |Larry Robinson |633
1975-76 to 1993-94 |452 |Wayne Gretzky |573

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

I think what Canadiens1958 means is that when comparing Lidstrom you’re basically taking his entire career and matching it up with another player’s entire career. When to properly look at it you should be comparing +/- only for the years which they were in the league at the same time.
Lidstrom started in ‘91-’92, so when comparing to Stevens you should be comparing their 92 – 2004 when Stevens retired. Or Bourque from 92 – 2001 with Lidstrom from the same time span.

How does the overlap of his career compare to his contemporaries?

 

[nik jr]

quackenbush played a non-physical, positional style of D before kelly.

i read once that quackenbush was a mentor for kelly, and taught him how to play D.



::



C1958's +/- comparison is among the worst arguments i have ever seen.

i don't see how it is much different from using career points.

Not to degrade Yzerman or Fedorov, but I'm extremely curious to see how well the Red Wings are going to do when Lidstrom takes his leave.

Despite the loss/retirement of some Hall of Fame talent, the Red Wings continue to be one of the top teams in the league. I think a large part of the credit must go to the Wings front office but there has been one constant on all the great Detroit teams.

It will be interesting to see how they do long term without him.

After all six-time Norris Trophy winners don't come along every day and neither do players who make the first all-star team nine years in a row.

I also find it interesting to see Lidstrom being denegrated for his plus/minus not that I think that the stat is the be all end all of defensive greatness. Six times in the top ten (5 in the top 3), 11th best all-time, and first amongst active players.

lidstrom has missed very few games in his career (i think it is less than 20), but i am fairly sure that DRW are close to .500 when he did not play.

and of course i agree about management as well.

Leonard "Red" Kelly outstanding at two positions - defense and center. Within three seasons of his arrival in Detroit and Toronto became a key part of dynasty teams. Facilitated Borje Salming's adaptation to the North American game.

My appreciation of Red Kelly was posted previously, copied above.

Kelly was physical especially when he was playing center, fighting thru checks to get into the slot and being very responsible defensively tying up the other center. He was not a perimeter player. Kelly was also a contemporary of Maurice Richard and I never saw Maurice Richard pull his "buttonhook" move on Kelly when Kelly was playing defense. Kelly was not above using his body to create obstacles or eliminate them. Lidstrom as evidenced by the Umberger video rarely does use his body in such a fashion.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kellyre01.html

Kelly's PIM during his Detroit years reflect a physical side to his game, including majors.

Whereas Lidstrom's PIM are comparable to Kelly with Detroit when you factor in app 20% more games:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lidstni01.html

The only upward spike comes 2005-06 and later with the anti - obstruction calls - willing to hook, hold etc instead of using the body like Kelly did to eliminate a threat without trying to blast the player into the cheap seats.

Red Kelly was the last NHL player to successfully blend a career as a defenseman and a forward. Similar to greats like Cyclone Taylor, Ebbie Goodfellow and others.

As for good fortune. Conveniently overlooking that Lidstrom had the good fortune to be drafted by Detroit as opposed to one of the weak teams.

Granted great players and great teams have a way of finding each other. Detroit managed to get Red Kelly out of Ontario and the Toronto Maple Leafs back yard. Then when Kelly refused to be traded to the Rangers the Leafs stepped up and arranged a trade when other teams did not. That the Leafs(Punch Imlach) had the vision to use Kelly in a different role is a tribute to them and to Red Kelly who accepted the change and integrated himself into a new team , adapting to a different position and role creating the resulting rewards for all.

So Kelly is rated higher than Lidstrom for the reasons outlined.

you have it backwards. DRW were a weak team when lidstrom was drafted, and remained weak until lidstrom's rookie season. not coincidentally, DRW have been strong since lidstrom joined the team.



obviously, lidstrom was not the only reason for DRW's improvement. imo, the key to the turnaround from the dead things era was new management.
other players of the '89 draft, especially fedorov and konstantinov were also very important. many good veterans like coffey, mccrimmon, howe, ciccarelli, sheppard, larionov, fetisov were acquired. bowman was very important, especially on the defensive side, as DRW had tended to win by outscoring opponents more than by playing D.


but i also think it is important to note how mediocre DRW's record has been in games which lidstrom missed.

almost all the players from the '90s DRW teams are gone, but the team is just as strong. the only constant has been lidstrom.


before lidstrom:

'86
17-57-6
-149 goal differential
worst team in the NHL

'87
34-36-10
-14

'88
41-28-11
+53
(much better D, goaltending and scoring depth than usual in '88.)


'89
34-34-12
-5

'90
28-38-14
-35
3rd worst record in the NHL


'91
34-38-8
-25



'92 (lidstrom's rookie season)
43-25-12
3rd best record in NHL (tied for 2nd most points)
+64

'93
47-28-9
+89

'94
46-30-8
+81

'95 (48 games)
33-11-4
+63

'96
62-13-7
+144

'97
38-26-18
+56

'98
44-23-15
+54

'99
43-32-7
+43

'00
48-22-10-2
+68

'01
49-20-9-4
+54

'02
51-17-10-4
+64

'03
48-20-10-4
+66

'04
48-21-11-2
+66

'06
58-16-8
+96

'07
50-19-13
+55

'08
54-21-7
+73

'09
51-21-10
+51


DRW in the 6 seasons before lidstrom

188-231-61

-175 goal differential

1 season above .500


DRW with lidstrom

809-365-168-16

+1087

never missed the playoffs
no losing seasons
6 president's trophies
4 cups

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assumptions

Wrong. He did not play in the same era as Russell Bowie and Frank McGee. Their careers barely overlapped.

Taylor was the third best goalscorer of the time, not too far behind Lalonde and Malone, and he was easily the best playmaker of the era. He led the PCHA in assists six times.

You're gonna say "but I have The Trail! There are no assists in there." but the NHL kept assists for some of those years covered, too. Coleman omitted all assists for simplicity. But the PCHA kept those stats throughout, as did the WCHL.

These aren't phantom stats - they exist. You're just using hockeydb which is highly incomplete. Try looking at hockey-reference or legendsofhockey or reading Total Hockey 2. Or, get an SIHR membership and get access to all the NHA/PCHA leaderboards and learn more about something you really need to learn more about.

Taylor was the first player to make setting up a teammate one of his major scoring options. As evidenced by having more than 80% more assists per game then any other players once the PCHA started recording assists.

My response was to the bolded. Since the poster in question tried to be cute using percentages as opposed to links with hard data,I just grabbed the first available year on hockeydb and extrapolated

Taylor averaged app.8APG an assist during his PCHA career. 80% more assists per game means that the others did not surpass .444 APG during Taylor's tenure. During the season I refereed to the assists leaders per team averaged .57/.59/.70 APG. or respectively 12 / 13 / 17 assists. Even if you take the bottom .57 APG the 80% is an exagerattion

You mention that Taylor led the PCHA in assists 6 times meaning that during his 10 year PCHA career at least twice, since I will acknowledge the two partial seasons, he was not the leader while racking up prime type numbers. To get to the 80% claim the leader and all the other players would have had to be significantly under the 1920-21 totals which is very unlikely and points in the direction of an exagerration. Support the 80% claim with data as opposed to getting cute.

Overlap. Not a clearly defined concept.

 

[Weztex]

It is pretty much agreed that Kelly and Lidstrom both played very sound positional defense. Both of them didn't tend toward physical play to contain the opposition. Given the acknowledged similarities in play and limited first hand accounts of Kelly's game, it become hard to separate the two in term of actual play. What separates one of the other to my eyes is the impact both gave to championship teams. I'll try to explain the best I can.

Given that the next input of d-men will likely include the likes of Chelios, Park, Pilote, Coffey, etc, I tend to separate high-end defensemen in two tier. Tier 1 comprise defensemen that appears to me as cornerstones of dynasty teams or perennial powerhouses. Guys like Orr, Shore, Bourque, Harvey, Potvin have many times in their career be the ''guy to go'' among very powerful teams. Those can been seen as locomotives of great teams for an extended period of time. I tend to add Lidstrom to that select group given the central point he held during the Wings tenure over the last 12 years. While guys like Yzerman, Federov or Zetterberg all shared their tremendous contribution to the team, I've always seen Lidstrom as, like the other greats mentioned above, the guy you got to contain to derail the whole train.

This is where I draw the line. Tier 2 appears to me like a group of tremendous d-men who, while being among the best of all-time, almost never acted as the cornerstone of their respective teams. Guys like Chelios, Park or Pilote. Players who while being intrinsic parts of powerhouses, never defined them or weren't the ones seen as gamebreakers. Some like Leetch or MacInnis reached a very limited tier 1 peak, not nearly long enough to put them over the top. This is where I draw the line between Lidstrom and Kelly. You got to be an incredibly great defenseman to act year in and year out as the focal point of a winning team. While Lidstrom seems like this focal point in a more or less dynasty team I fail to see that in Kelly, whose teams success were led (Howe aside) by a hot as hell goaltender and a heart and soul forward who played like his life was on the line. Kelly, while essential, don't seem to me like the guy you had to stop to pass through the Wings. Maybe my knowledge of Kelly isn't up to par but that's the first difference I see in those two greats. Don't hesitate to correct me or add other points.

By the way, comparing +/- between era without adjustment is like saying Dennis Maruk was better than Kovalchuk because he put up better numbers. It is looking to an already irrelevant stat with an irrelevant point of view : Useless to the debate.

Glad to finally enter the debate.

 

[ck26]

Bobby Clarke
Phil Esposito
Glenn Hall
Dominik Hasek
Jaromir Jagr
Leonard "Red" Kelly
Guy Lafleur
Nicklas Lidstrom
Ted Lindsay
Stan Mikita
Howie Morenz
Jacques Plante
Denis Potvin
Patrick Roy
Terry Sawchuk

Count me among the group of those who left Howie Morenz out of his top 10; count me also among the much-smaller group of those who won't rank him 11th (nothing I read in the first thread has convinced me, but I'm still all eyes). I have Hasek 11th (he was much higher) on the power of his out-of-this-world peak, and that Hasek was every bit the "best player in the world" during his prime that Morenz was in his, and I think it's arguable that "The Dominator" was a substantial celebrity-star-attraction.

Beyond that, my thoughts are pretty-much in line with the way I draft in the ATD; tough, two-way players > the one-dimensional scorers ... I have Lafleur and Jagr rated easily the worst skaters on the list. I'll spend the next couple days re-reading the first thread and listening to opinions on the goaltenders. Roy backstopped far-inferior Canadiens teams than Plante to far-less success. Roy had comparable career achievements to Sawchuk. I'd rate Plante's "innovativeness" as comparable to Hall's.

I'm very interested in the arrival of Mark Messier, Bryan Trottier and Larry Robinson.

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

I think what Canadiens1958 means is that when comparing Lidstrom you’re basically taking his entire career and matching it up with another player’s entire career. When to properly look at it you should be comparing +/- only for the years which they were in the league at the same time.
Lidstrom started in ‘91-’92, so when comparing to Stevens you should be comparing their 92 – 2004 when Stevens retired. Or Bourque from 92 – 2001 with Lidstrom from the same time span.

How does the overlap of his career compare to his contemporaries?

Right, now I sort of get it (I think):

Years |+/- |Active leader |+/- |Other #1 |+/- |Other #2 |+/- |Other #3 |+/-
1991-92 |36 |Paul Ysebaert |44 |Brad McCrimmon |39 |Larry Murphy |33 |Chris Chelios |24
1991-92 to 2000-01 |205 |Scott Stevens |246 |Al MacInnis |171 |Larry Murphy |155 |Ray Bourque |116
1991-92 to 2003-04 |277 |Scott Stevens |282 |Chris Chelios |210 |Al MacInnis |195 |Scott Niedermayer |172

I listed some other notable players along with the active leaders. Not listed here is Fedorov, who led the triumvirate of Red Wings (along with Konstantinov and Lidström) for the 1991-92 to 1996-97 time period.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nope

I think what Canadiens1958 means is that when comparing Lidstrom you’re basically taking his entire career and matching it up with another player’s entire career. When to properly look at it you should be comparing +/- only for the years which they were in the league at the same time.
Lidstrom started in ‘91-’92, so when comparing to Stevens you should be comparing their 92 – 2004 when Stevens retired. Or Bourque from 92 – 2001 with Lidstrom from the same time span.

How does the overlap of his career compare to his contemporaries?

No simply entire career to entire career.

Basic problem when comparing active to retired is that one is changing while the other is fixed.

 

[Thegeneral66]

I honestly agree - the unbelievable pro-canadia(e)n anti-european bias from a voter is disturbing. Reminds me of a rejected list from the previous vote that had Hasek at #49 and Lidstrom at #83 -- though I know that particular list is not his because Canadiens players are not ranked nearly high enough.

Cup counting to the extreme; Actually using dead-puck era +/- comparisons to the 70s as a reason to discount Lidstrom; Falling back on a completely unsubstantiated "accusation" to discredit Hasek to the extreme; as well as a myriad of other flimsy hijinks against players he appears to simply "not like" each of which collapse like a house of cards with the barest amount of scrutiny before he moves onto the next one.

15 players up for votes this round, 12 canadian and 3 european -- guess which three are dead last on his list? -- the only voter to do so (even God Bless Canada had Hasek 10th in this vote).

I think you guys should refrain from these kind of attack posts. While he seems to generally take a "What I Saw" and cups/winning approach to his list, he does bring up some interesting points of view on topics. He also has some good information on older eras and specific games from back then. It is important for people reading this thread to see different views on players to make the list as "Correct" as possible.

While I don't like the +/- argument, I did find some of his ideas on Hasek from the last thread at least interesting enough for me to investigate more into his career pre NHL.

I will say that from reading these posts and all of the previous HHOF List posts that current era players are not valued as highly in general, but I feel that will change as tthe decades pass us by.

Keep on discussing!

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Adjusting Lidstrom's stats to that era in that manner does not work. Defensemen back then rarely joined the rush even in the capacity that Lidstrom or his partners did in the dead puck era. Compensating for this while using adjusted stats is necessary.

This was an era when 30 points for a defenseman was an eye opening number for an excellent offensive season. Comparable to 60 points for a defenseman now.

Kelly was the best offensive defenseman ever after Orr and Coffey(And Possibly Shore), and Kelly also played a stay at home style to boot and he was very good at it. I fully expect that he would have been scoring 70-80 point seasons regularly in the dead puck era, while Harvey would have been scoring slightly below that, but slightly above Lidstrom.

You are selling them short by simply saying "Lidstrom's adjusted stats are better" and it is completely incorrect to begin with.

Would it be fair if I compared 1949 - 1960 (GPG were between 4.8 and 5.9) and 1998- 2009 (GPG were between 5.14 and 6.17)?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points (1949-1960)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points (1998-2009)

Ignoring any attempt to adjust points, I think they look very comparable.

I do not buy that 30 points (from a defenseman) in that time period was 60 points in the dead-puck era. Not when I just pulled 37 player seasons and 13 different defensemen at above 30 points from 1949-1960.

With 5 times the teams, even more times the players and a much deeper hockey pool to pull from, there were only 25 player seasons and 15 different players over 60 points from 1998-2009.

No way does that jive.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Just one point I wanted to make earlier, but I didn't get to on the Lafleur front. And it's a comparison with Phil Esposito.

A lot of people here (myself included) hype Lafleur's six-year run from 74-80. We don't give Espo enough credit for his run. Just like Lafleur, Espo was a first-team all-star six straight years. (And Espo did it at centre). And Espo won a bunch of shiny things. Five Art Ross Trophies. A couple of Harts. A couple of Pearsons. He led the league in goals six times. Assists three times. (Second four times). He also won two Cups, and scored at nearly the same point per game clip in the post-season as Lafleur.

I don't buy the "product of Bobby Orr" nonsense spewed by some around here. Espo had a couple of assists titles before Orr really hit his stride. And in his first 100-point season (correction, first 120-point season), Orr wasn't a point-per-game player.

He absolutely dominated the 72 Summit Series. He was the unquestionable MVP of that tournament. I don't put a ton of stock into international tournaments - most of them are short tournaments that don't feature the worlds best players, and they use best-of-one formats instead of the vastly superior best-of-seven ultimate test of superiority. Summit was different. It was the first best-on-best tournament. It was a best-of-eight, not some one-and-done thing. And it was played in both Canada and the USSR, incorporating the differences between the NHL and the international game. Espo dominated. He carried that team on his back. In the grandest showcase the sport has ever seen, in the single-most important event in the history of hockey, Espo was the best player. Hands down.

I admit I'm part of the problem. I had Lafleur at 13 or 14, and Espo at 21 or 22. The more I look at it, I think I might be off. Should I have had Lafleur ahead of Roy? No. Ahead of Sawchuk and probably Mikita? Maybe not. Should I have Espo ahead of Messier or Hasek? Probably.

May or may not vote for Espo ahead of Hasek. I don't think Hasek needs my support. He'll get in anyways.

I think part of the issue is style points. Lafleur was stylish. He's probably the sleekest, most entertaining forward to watch in the last 35 years. He didn't have Gretzky's mind or eyes. Didn't have Mario's combination of skill and strength. But to watch Lafleur seemingly glide down the right wing and unleash a shot - he was breathtaking. A joy to watch. Espo? Not at all. He'd lumber down the ice, and get in front of the net. Probably the best player ever within five feet of the net. He wasn't fast, although he was very strong on the puck, he had such fantastic instincts, he was so strong, and he was almost unstoppable in tight. And he had the perfect complimentary player for his style in Wayne Cashman. Watching Lafleur was like watching a Ferrari at Monaco. Watching Esposito was like watch a beater in an Enduro race. I think that's a big difference in how we evaluate them. And I think it's a mistake.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Would it be fair if I compared 1949 - 1960 (GPG were between 4.8 and 5.9) and 1998- 2009 (GPG were between 5.14 and 6.17)?

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points (1949-1960)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points (1998-2009)

Ignoring any attempt to adjust points, I think they look very comparable.

I do not buy that 30 points (from a defenseman) in that time period was 60 points in the dead-puck era. Not when I just pulled 37 player seasons and 13 different defensemen at above 30 points from 1949-1960.

With 5 times the teams, even more times the players and a much deeper hockey pool to pull from, there were only 25 player seasons and 15 different players over 60 points from 1998-2009.

No way does that jive.

When Kelly played, defencemen did not join the rush. You do know that, right? If you don't, you don't belong in this process.

In 49-50, Kelly had 15 goals and 40 points. The criminally underrated Bill Gadsby was the only other one with at least 10 goals and 30 points.

In 50-51, he had 17 goals and 54 points. The next-closest in each category was Allan Stanley (seven goals) and Jimmy Thomson (36 points). The 2-3-4 defencemen in goals combined for 18 goals that year. Kelly had 17.

In 51-52, he had 16 goals and 47 points. One-year wonder Hy Buller was next with 12 and 35.

When Bobby Orr came into the league in 66, it changed everything. Suddenly defencemen were encouraged to jump up into the play, be part of the rush, pinch and be involved in the offensive side of the sport. (It's part of the reason I have Orr as the No. 1 player of all-time - a guy so good, who comes along once a century, who can change a position and ultimately, the course of the game's history). Kelly wasn't encouraged to join the rush. Yet he still topped 15 goals and 40 points seven straight years. The things he did, when in comparison to his peers, were incredible.

I don't think you realize just how impressive 15 goals was for a defenceman in the 1950s.

 

[Weztex]

Just one point I wanted to make earlier, but I didn't get to on the Lafleur front. And it's a comparison with Phil Esposito.

(...)

I agree with most of the points you bring GBC. I think the last list slightly overrated Lafleur and underrated Esposito, mostly for style over substance. There's a good discussion ahead around Lafleur, Esposito, Jagr.