Lidstrom the first top-20 (skaters) to retire since Bourque?

[quoipourquoi]

No.....

I actually do have both in my Top-20 skaters, but I'm not sure what Yzerman's argument would be over Messier. Ignoring Messier's two 1st Teams at LW, he has another two 1st Teams at C against both Gretzky and Lemieux) and was a better playoff performer. He even comes out ahead in a breakdown of their late-career offense (the thread was probably six months ago or so). The only leg Yzerman has to stand on (hehe, 2002 joke) is when he was encouraged to become Stevie Wonder just to get people in the building.

Again, I think their both Top-20 skaters, but Messier brings more to the table career, prime, and peak.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Macinnis in 1991 was not exactly a defensive stalwart

But he was a better overall player than he was in 1999 and 2003, yes?


EDIT: I'm glad I got to mention Yzerman, because his increased defense at the expense of offense at a later age mirrors MacInnis in St. Louis, right down to the 1st Team selections against weaker competition despite having better seasons in their twenties.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There was a significant minority opinion around 2002 that Lidstrom was the best player in the world, taking everything into account (offense, defense, playoffs). Dont recall anything like that for Leetch or MacInnis

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But he was a better overall player than he was in 1999 and 2003, yes?

I think thats highly debatable. He wasnt even a top PK option on his teams until the mid to late 90s, right?

 

[quoipourquoi]

There was a significant minority opinion around 2002 that Lidstrom was the best player in the world, taking everything into account (offense, defense, playoffs). Dont recall anything like that for Leetch or MacInnis

It was one magazine doing their annual Top 50 based upon predictions for the following season. Rick Nash always does well on the THN list. Lidstrom was no more the best player in 2002 than Kiprusoff and Pronger were the Top-2 in 2006 with Nash in the 9-spot.

Yeah, I have a subscription too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It was one magazine doing their annual Top 50 based upon predictions for the following season. Rick Nash always does well on the THN list. Lidstrom was no more the best player in 2002 than Kiprusoff and Pronger were the Top-2 in 2006 with Nash in the 9-spot.

Yeah, I have a subscription too.

It wasnt just the magazine. I, for one happened to agree at the time

 

[quoipourquoi]

It wasnt just the magazine. I, for one happened to agree at the time

In a year in which he got only one more first-place vote than Chelios (would you like to argue that he was at his peak?), saw Shanahan make the only splash in Detroit Hart voting, and became the spit-take winner of a Niedermayer-esque Conn Smythe?

 

[Hobnobs]

No one is punishing anyone; don't be so dramatic. MacInnis was better in 1991 than he was in 1999 or 2003. He just happened to collect his Norris against Lidstrom but not against Bourque's prime because the bar was set lower for 1st Place votes in 1999 than it was in 1991. Ever notice how Lidstrom's pre-lockout Norris Trophies were won against players in the twilight of their careers (2001 Bourque, 2002 Chelios, 2003 MacInnis)?

Make no mistake, MacInnis in 1991 was better than the MacInnis trading Norris Trophies with Lidstrom in his late 30s.

What is the defensemans primary objective? I actually prefer Macinnis in his twillight to the run-n-gun macinnis of his prime. I dont know about the 01-03 Ive always been suspicious as to why Zubov and Gonchar got so few votes.

Adressed to the Karlsson crowd:

Can we stop with the Karlsson bandwagon? He scored a goal in the playoffs for a team that is basically built to make sure he provides the offense. He has improved defensively and has probably reached average in that regard. Lets see if he developes more instead of already comparing him to Lidström.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What is the defensemans primary objective?

Winning the hockey game. As long as the risks pay off more often than not, an offensive defenseman can make a greater impact upon a team's ability to win than one who plays zero-sum hockey.

 

[Hobnobs]

Winning the hockey game. As long as the risks pay off more often than not, an offensive defenseman can make a greater impact upon a team's ability to win than one who plays zero-sum hockey.

Winning the game is a team objective. A defensemans primary objective is his own zone.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In a year in which he got only one more first-place vote than Chelios (would you like to argue that he was at his peak?), saw Shanahan make the only splash in Detroit Hart voting, and became the spit-take winner of a Niedermayer-esque Conn Smythe?

Yes, the year Lidstrom won his third straight Norris and outscored Chelios 59-39 while taking tougher defensive assignments at even strength. Chelios was probably a better penalty killer still, but come on. Chelios had a great comeback year and a lot of writers wanted to reward him for it, rather than the nonphysical European guy who had won the last two Norrises.

IMO, Lidstrom was clearly the best Red Wing in the playoffs too - he played over 31 minutes per game! Chelios was second with a bit over 26, then Fedorov at 22 and changes. A large and vocal minority wanted to give the Smythe to the good old Canadian captain who played on one knee rather than that European guy who had the nerve to play defense without smashing people.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Winning the hockey game. As long as the risks pay off more often than not, an offensive defenseman can make a greater impact upon a team's ability to win than one who plays zero-sum hockey.

Agree with this statement as a general one but...

Disagree with the characterization of Lidstrom as playing "zero-sum hockey." Controlling the pace of the game through puck possession is hardly "zero sum."

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yes, the year Lidstrom won his third straight Norris and outscored Chelios 59-39 while taking tougher defensive assignments at even strength. Chelios was probably a better penalty killer still, but come on. Chelios had a great comeback year and a lot of writers wanted to reward him for it, rather than the nonphysical European guy who had won the last two Norrises.

IMO, Lidstrom was clearly the best Red Wing in the playoffs too - he played over 31 minutes per game! Chelios was second with a bit over 26, then Fedorov at 22 and changes. A large and vocal minority wanted to give the Smythe to the good old Canadian captain who played on one knee rather than that European guy who had the nerve to play defense without smashing people.

I agree with both of your overall points on Lidstrom being pretty clearly better than Chelios in the regular season and the obvious Smythe winner in the playoffs.


In reference to the bolded, what were the Detroit pairings that year? I thought I remembered Lidstrom and Chelios being partners and when I took a quick look, their ES TOI is virtually identical...BUT, Chelios' +40 is way higher than Lidstrom's +13, so they couldn't have been together all season. The next best Detroit defensemen was Jiri Fischer +17. Did Detroit switch the pairings part way through the season?

PS: You see the same +/- discrepancy in the playoffs...Chelios +15, next best is Lidstrom and Fischer tied at +6.

 

[toob]

By that standard no offensive player today can ever be described as dominant because they can't compare to Wayne and Mario.

The word "dominant" can cut a wider swath than so as to be applicable to more than just the top two offensive defensemen in NHL history without using it being an "insult".

But defensemen simply havent been dominant offensive players except for Orr and Coffey who were among the best offensive players in the league who have played for several years. You would really be charitable to add the other Ds like Potvin,Macinnis, Leetch and only for one ssn (and yes a guy like Bourque is not at all dominant offensive player - sure he can lead his team in points many times whereas Coffey has done it once and yet Coffey is miles ahead offensively). As dominant offensive defensemen then maybe Bourque and Lidstrom have cases.

And this is, of course, neglecting to take into account how many points Lidstrom sacrificed by taking on the primary shut down role for his team, especially in the playoffs, a role that Zubov rarely had.

Do people not realize that Lidstrom's primary job for most of his time in Detroit was defense and that he took more defensive zone draws (and therefore fewer offensive zone draws) and faced tougher quality opponents than just about anyone else?

i dont really see how you could make an argument that Lidstrom's point totals were hurt by playing in the Red Wing system. The forwards yes the defenseman not so much. If Lidstrom wasnt playing with Yzerman he was playing with Fedorov and ditto Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Yes he was defense first but he was also a great passer. His context of a deep team that could roll 4 lines was extremely well suited for his skills and prolly maximized them.

Now ppl do sell Lids short on some of his offensive skills. Lids could skate very well. He would be fine on another team as an offensive D. Would most likely put up the same 50-80 points he did on DRW even with a weaker cast - but the D would suffer because the context isnt suited for maximizing his skillset.

Defensemen points are not as good of a stat as forward points (and those arent great either) and they are very much affected by the team. You would just have to watch Coffey in Detroit get his ppg in some ssns and Lids in Detroit with his close to ppg ssns to tell the difference between what they were doing offensively.

 

[Hobnobs]

I agree with both of your overall points on Lidstrom being pretty clearly better than Chelios in the regular season and the obvious Smythe winner in the playoffs.


In reference to the bolded, what were the Detroit pairings that year? I thought I remembered Lidstrom and Chelios being partners and when I took a quick look, their ES TOI is virtually identical...BUT, Chelios' +40 is way higher than Lidstrom's +13, so they couldn't have been together all season. The next best Detroit defensemen was Jiri Fischer +17. Did Detroit switch the pairings part way through the season?

PS: You see the same +/- discrepancy in the playoffs...Chelios +15, next best is Lidstrom and Fischer tied at +6.

Lidström were mentor to Fischer about half that season I believe. Its too bad it went so bad with Fischer heart problem. He really was something and he would have been a better version of Stuart I think.

 

[Hobnobs]

But defensemen simply havent been dominant offensive players except for Orr and Coffey who were among the best offensive players in the league who have played for several years. You would really be charitable to add the other Ds like Potvin,Macinnis, Leetch and only for one ssn (and yes a guy like Bourque is not at all dominant offensive player - sure he can lead his team in points many times whereas Coffey has done it once and yet Coffey is miles ahead offensively). As dominant offensive defensemen then maybe Bourque and Lidstrom have cases.





i dont really see how you could make an argument that Lidstrom's point totals were hurt by playing in the Red Wing system. The forwards yes the defenseman not so much. If Lidstrom wasnt playing with Yzerman he was playing with Fedorov and ditto Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Yes he was defense first but he was also a great passer. His context of a deep team that could roll 4 lines was extremely well suited for his skills and prolly maximized them.

Now ppl do sell Lids short on some of his offensive skills. Lids could skate very well. He would be fine on another team as an offensive D. Would most likely put up the same 50-80 points he did on DRW even with a weaker cast - but the D would suffer because the context isnt suited for maximizing his skillset.

Defensemen points are not as good of a stat as forward points (and those arent great either) and they are very much affected by the team. You would just have to watch Coffey in Detroit get his ppg in some ssns and Lids in Detroit with his close to ppg ssns to tell the difference between what they were doing offensively.

Because Lidström passes are outlet he would often not get credited for an assist as the puck moved up the ice. Thats the problem with peoples statements that he wasnt as good offensively as his high scoring era counterparts. He didnt rush the puck instead he gave it up so that players like Murphy and Rafalski could have that more offensive role on the team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with both of your overall points on Lidstrom being pretty clearly better than Chelios in the regular season and the obvious Smythe winner in the playoffs.


In reference to the bolded, what were the Detroit pairings that year? I thought I remembered Lidstrom and Chelios being partners and when I took a quick look, their ES TOI is virtually identical...BUT, Chelios' +40 is way higher than Lidstrom's +13, so they couldn't have been together all season. The next best Detroit defensemen was Jiri Fischer +17. Did Detroit switch the pairings part way through the season?

PS: You see the same +/- discrepancy in the playoffs...Chelios +15, next best is Lidstrom and Fischer tied at +6.

I don't remember the Red Wings that well - I know Lidstrom and Chelios were on different pairings at even strength but played together on the top penalty kill unit. I'm sure Red Wings fan can explain better.

Chelios' high plus minus (largely the result of being a star player playing against lesser competition) was taken a little too seriously by the writers IMO

 

[toob]

I actually do have both in my Top-20 skaters, but I'm not sure what Yzerman's argument would be over Messier. Ignoring Messier's two 1st Teams at LW, he has another two 1st Teams at C against both Gretzky and Lemieux) and was a better playoff performer. He even comes out ahead in a breakdown of their late-career offense (the thread was probably six months ago or so). The only leg Yzerman has to stand on (hehe, 2002 joke) is when he was encouraged to become Stevie Wonder just to get people in the building.

Again, I think their both Top-20 skaters, but Messier brings more to the table career, prime, and peak.

Im off to watch the game so i will come back to this but Yzerman definitely has more leg to stand on figuratively despite his legs being so much more problematic literally. In fact the only things i think Messier has on Stevie is physical play (which Yzerman definitely wasnt a slouch on despite his handicap compared to Messier) and playoff success though not performance 30 year old Yzerman had a unanimous Conn Smythe win in 98 and was in the running in 97 and 02 playing excellent D and still being a ppg player on a team that didnt allow for nearly as much accumulation of offensive statistics as Messier's teams. Yzerman just never had the opportunities just like Bourque vis a vis Lidstrom. In his prime he was either too hurt or dominated but his team was too weak so he went to the WCs and dominated there as well.

The All Star teams and Harts of 90 and 92 were won with a completely different Gretzky and Lemieux than in 88 or 89. See this post in the part about the Hart in 90 for a video that shows that the Hart candidates are not necessarily considered the best players in the world. See this scouting report after the 90 ssn for more of that:

 

[danincanada]

I agree with both of your overall points on Lidstrom being pretty clearly better than Chelios in the regular season and the obvious Smythe winner in the playoffs.


In reference to the bolded, what were the Detroit pairings that year? I thought I remembered Lidstrom and Chelios being partners and when I took a quick look, their ES TOI is virtually identical...BUT, Chelios' +40 is way higher than Lidstrom's +13, so they couldn't have been together all season. The next best Detroit defensemen was Jiri Fischer +17. Did Detroit switch the pairings part way through the season?

PS: You see the same +/- discrepancy in the playoffs...Chelios +15, next best is Lidstrom and Fischer tied at +6.

During the playoffs the pairings were typically set up like this:

Lidstrom - Olausson
Fischer - Chelios
Duchesne - Dandenault

I think the regular season was similar but obviously there were injuries and times when Bowman played with the pairings and lineup.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not talking about a stretch of multiple seasons though; his ABSOLUTE PEAK. On their best day, who was better in your opinion?

I'll take Tom Bladon.

Heck I'm pretty sure Al Iafrate must have had an awesome game sometime in his career as well.

To take players on their best days is there even that much separating the top guy ever form say the 20th guy ever?

Being the best of all time is after all about consistency isn't it?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Macinnis in 1991 was not exactly a defensive stalwart

First thing that came to mind to me as well and there is a very strong argument that he was more productive overall later in his career than earlier when he had more counting points.

In 91 Mac was 9th in total scoring points with 103 and in 99 he was 35th with 62 points.

It's not a given that he helped his team win more in 91 IMO.

Mac was a top 50 scorer in

87 at 32nd with 76 points
88 at 28th with 83 points
91 at 9th with 103 points
92 at 36th with 77 points
94 at 34th with 82 points
99 at 35th with 62 points

I think most people here would say that Mac was more dominant offensively than Lidstrom but taken in context of how many Dmen were in the top 50 in Mac's heyday (pre 94 an average of 5 per year), one could easily say that Lidstrom's record of dominance is even more impressive than the great Al MacInnis.

 

[Hardyvan123]

But he was a better overall player than he was in 1999 and 2003, yes?

I would argue that he was better in 99

He was in on 29% of Calgary goals in 91 and in on 26% of his teams goals in 99. He is in on 27% of goals in 03.

The slight increase in offensive production was less than the increase in his defensive play in 99 and 03 compared to 91 IMO.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

We saw Leetch's downside even in his prime. He wasn't Paul Coffey, but he still got caught up ice his share of the time and he was soft in his own zone, even in his prime. Prime Leetch was above average defensively (unlike Coffey), but he couldn't hold Lidstrom's jock defensively.

Do you also think Al MacInnis peaked higher than Lidstrom? I can't see much difference between his peak and Leetch's. I guess you wouldn't take Scott Stevens over Lidstrom (another guy I think was equal to Leetch and MacInnis at their peaks) because you prefer offense?



Once again showing you'll say anything an an attempt to discredit Lidstrom. How on Earth did Zubov have an unfavorable team situation to produce points? He broke into the league on the offensive-minded Rangers with Brian Leetch and Mark Messier, then got traded to the run and gun Penguins with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr. Dallas was more defensive-minded than Detroit and Zubov's offense went down as he was forced to play competent defense. But even in Dallas, Zubov had the luxury of having a defenseman on the other pairing (in this case Derian Hatcher) take the tougher defensive roles.

Do people not realize that Lidstrom's primary job for most of his time in Detroit was defense and that he took more defensive zone draws (and therefore fewer offensive zone draws) and faced tougher quality opponents than just about anyone else?

I resent this remark.

I'm making the point that Zubov was a better offensive player than people are giving him credit for. Say anything? Look in the mirror sometime.

Somehow my rating Lidstrom not as high as you do leads to me saying anything to discredit him? I call bull **** on this one. Read my remarks for what they are, not the way you want to preceive them.

 

[tjcurrie]

I resent this remark.

I'm making the point that Zubov was a better offensive player than people are giving him credit for. Say anything? Look in the mirror sometime.

Somehow my rating Lidstrom not as high as you do leads to me saying anything to discredit him? I call bull **** on this one. Read my remarks for what they are, not the way you want to preceive them.

Also wanna throw this out there - I think people put a little too much stock in how a bunch of guys vote. Not that it counts for nothing, but it's not everything.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Playing on the Edge

TDMM - the following Doug Harvey clip illustrates, playing on the edge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkcH6jsqJE0&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4F9F6522498C74B1

Note the play from the period opening faceoff against Boston. He gets the puck from the draw then moves to the extreme corner of the neutral zone rectangle creating wider lanes and open ice, producing a goal.

Colour goal against Toronto, note how he plays the extreme corner of the offensive zone, spin move and a goal.