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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Really not sure why you used adjusted stats to compare the two when, as was already mentioned earlier, they pretty much played at the exact same time.
Either way, raw totals are very misleading here as Leetch's career .85 PpG to Lidstrom's .73 PpG attests to.
Basically Lidstrom would need to play 94 games to match what Leetch would put up in 80 games.
I'm sorry but that's not close!

Leetch's offensive prime happened when the league was still very high scoring, while Lidstrom's did not.

Going back to "real" points, Leetch only broke 60 points once after 1997. Lidstrom only broke 60 points twice (and never broke 70 points) before 2000.

Adjusted stats are nothing but a rough estimate, but they support the idea that Leetch had a clear offensive edge over Lidstrom in his prime, but it wasn't huge.

And the thing about Karlsson that makes his season so impressive is the sheer amount of even strength points he put up.
Totals of that nature haven't been seen since the likes of Coffey, Bourque and Leetch in the late 80's/early 90's.
Totals that Lidstrom has never even come remotely close to achieving.
From day 1, Lidstrom's offensive totals have lived or died on the strength of Detroit's PP.

We'll see how Detroit's PP does without Lidstrom. I have a feeling that they live and die with each other.

I said it before and I'll say it again, every season that Karlsson puts up like this season is another nail in Lidstrom's offensive coffin.
Because it shows what a true offensive D-man is capable of, even in today's league.
It has never been about it not being possible for the last decade or so, it's been because there was no one of the offensive level of Coffey, Bourque, MacInnis or Leetch around to do it.

Does it show what a true offensive dman is capable of, or does it show what a defenseman who thinks offense-first is capable of? I think it's a little of both.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Leetch's offensive prime happened when the league was still very high scoring, while Lidstrom's did not. Leetch only broke 60 points in reality once after 1997. Lidstrom only broke 60 points twice (and never broke 70 points) before 2000.

Once again, it's not Leetch's fault that Lidstrom didn't or couldn't take advantage of a higher scoring league.
Then you compound the issue by using Leetch's years on some rather brutal Ranger teams later on while Lidstrom is playing for stacked Detroit teams.
I am seriously confused as to how you can honestly call such a comparison fair to Leetch in any way, shape or form?
You count it all for both players or you count nothing for both. You don't get to pick and choose.
Especially when you're choosing only based on Lidstrom's timeline, that my friend is just BS.
You can't punish everyone else just because Lidstrom didn't hit stride until he was 27.

Adjusted stats are nothing but a rough estimate, but they support the idea that Leetch had a clear offensive edge over Lidstrom in his prime, but it wasn't huge.

Until you factor in the eye test, then it's most certainly huge. Especially at even strength.

We'll see how Detroit's PP does without Lidstrom. I have a feeling that they live and die with each other.

We shall see.

Does it show what a true offensive dman is capable of, or does it show what a defenseman who thinks offense-first is capable of? I think it's a little of both.

Doesn't matter because Lidstrom is neither.
He's not a true offensive dman and he played defense first sooo...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Once again, it's not Leetch's fault that Lidstrom didn't or couldn't take advantage of a higher scoring league.

I disagree on that point. Different players peak at different ages, so it makes sense that Leetch (early peak) would have higher numbers than Lidstrom (later peak), even with a heavy career overlap. But for me, there's no hesitation in saying that Leetch was superior offensively even after any adjustment is made to the numbers. His peak - in general - was higher than Lidstrom's, and he had a better four-round playoff than all but maybe five-ten guys.

And where does Lidstrom make up ground? Consistency. Leetch has higher peaks but much lower valleys than anything from Lidstrom's career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Once again, it's not Leetch's fault that Lidstrom didn't or couldn't take advantage of a higher scoring league.
Then you compound the issue by using Leetch's years on some rather brutal Ranger teams later on while Lidstrom is playing for stacked Detroit teams.
I am seriously confused as to how you can honestly call such a comparison fair to Leetch in any way, shape or form?
You count it all for both players or you count nothing for both. You don't get to pick and choose.

What exactly is unfair about using the top 10 seasons of both players in a side by side comparison?

Especially when you're choosing only based on Lidstrom's timeline, that my friend is just BS.

That's not what I did. I took the best 10 seasons from Leetch's career and compared them to the best 10 from Lidstrom's.

You can't punish everyone else just because Lidstrom didn't hit stride until he was 27.

I'm not punishing anyone. Leetch peaked in a higher scoring era than Lidstrom did. I don't care that they were close to the same age; Leetch clearly was an early bloomer who tailed off and Lidstrom clearly was a late bloomer.

Until you factor in the eye test, then it's most certainly huge. Especially at even strength.

Leetch is the best defenseman at transitioning the puck from the defensive zone to the offensive zone that I've ever seen; this is true. (Coffey was past his prime by the time I really started following hockey).

My eye test also tells me that Lidstrom could put up a lot more points than he does if he rushed the puck up ice, rather than just providing supporting offense.

Anyway, I don't see why you're so up in arms; the adjusted stats show that Leetch produced more, even taking the more offensive league into account.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And where does Lidstrom make up ground? Consistency. Leetch has higher peaks but much lower valleys than anything from Lidstrom's career.

Definitely. You'll notice that each of Leetch's top 7 seasons is better than the corresponding Lidstrom season (in terms of offensive production), but after that, Lidstrom takes over. If I showed top 15 seasons of each, Lidstrom would easily have had the best 11th-15th best seasons from an offensive standpoint.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lidstrom does have 6 times (18,26,38,41, 42,47) in the top 50 scorers which is awesome given the era he played in.

Keep in mind there have been only 54 top 50 finishes by Dmen in the 92-12 time period that Lidstrom was in the league and 19 (4 by Lidstrom) of those were from 00-12 and 35 from 92-09.

It's not just the studs from the 80's and 90's that were putting up points, you ahve to put things in context and Karlsson has just 1 season that is the outlier in the trend over the last 20 years

Really not sure why you used adjusted stats to compare the two when, as was already mentioned earlier, they pretty much played at the exact same time.
Either way, raw totals are very misleading here as Leetch's career .85 PpG to Lidstrom's .73 PpG attests to.
Basically Lidstrom would need to play 94 games to match what Leetch would put up in 80 games.
I'm sorry but that's not close!

And the thing about Karlsson that makes his season so impressive is the sheer amount of even strength points he put up.
Totals of that nature haven't been seen since the likes of Coffey, Bourque and Leetch in the late 80's/early 90's.
Totals that Lidstrom has never even come remotely close to achieving.
From day 1, Lidstrom's offensive totals have lived or died on the strength of Detroit's PP.

I said it before and I'll say it again, every season that Karlsson puts up like this season is another nail in Lidstrom's offensive coffin.
Because it shows what a true offensive D-man is capable of, even in today's league.
It has never been about it not being possible for the last decade or so, it's been because there was no one of the offensive level of Coffey, Bourque, MacInnis or Leetch around to do it.

Go take a close look at how each of these players did in top 50 scoring.

Coffey did better but heck if you want to play the "Lidstrom played on better teams card" how are you going to treat Coffey?

Bourque comes out better but not as much as you would think and also has 12 seasons in the NHL with less teams, and less PP QB and PP top 6 variables from other teams to deal with as well and at the end of the day I'm not sure how to measure for that but I'm sure you know how to right?

I doubt that Mac does as well as you'd think against Lidstrom;s top 50 finishes and he played on some explosive teams.

Leetch does well but TDDM already showed that it is pretty close but if you want to disagree I will give you 100k in Italian money for a cool 10k in US greenbacks.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Definitely. You'll notice that each of Leetch's top 7 seasons is better than the corresponding Lidstrom season (in terms of offensive production), but after that, Lidstrom takes over. If I showed top 15 seasons of each, Lidstrom would easily have had the best 11th-15th best seasons from an offensive standpoint.

I'm having a slight case of mis-remembering as to when it was you believe Lidstrom to have hit his absolute peak, but how would you compare it to that of Leetch in 1991-92 or 1996-97?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Coffey did better but heck if you want to play the "Lidstrom played on better teams card" how are you going to treat Coffey?

As a player capable of winning the Western-half of the Hart vote in 1995 while scoring at an incredible pace - perhaps his best after adjustment, even without Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm having a slight case of mis-remembering as to when it was you believe Lidstrom to have hit his absolute peak, but how would you compare it to that of Leetch in 1991-92 or 1996-97?

I think Lidstrom's peak was probably from about 1999-00 to 2007-08. I think he and Leetch were very close on the PP, but Lidstrom was better overall at even strength and on the PK.

If you want to separate even strength offensive and defense, then I'd say Leetch was definitely better offensively but Lidstrom's defense more than made up for it.

Leetch's 1991-92 was an amazing offensive season but was somewhat of an outlier, even compared to other Leetch seasons.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think Lidstrom's peak was probably from about 1999-00 to 2007-08. I think he and Leetch were very close on the PP, but Lidstrom was better overall at even strength and on the PK.

If you want to separate even strength offensive and defense, then I'd say Leetch was definitely better offensively but Lidstrom's defense more than made up for it.

Leetch's 1991-92 was an amazing offensive season but was somewhat of an outlier, even compared to other Leetch seasons.

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

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

Better overall or offensively? At his absolute best, offensively is Leetch, and it isn't all that close.

Overall? It's really hard to say because they both controlled games in such different ways. Over the course of a decent sample of games, I would easily take Lidstrom's best over Leetch's best.

On his best day? You probably pick Leetch, who was more of a high risk/high reward player than Lidstrom. I'm not sure why we should ignore the downside to the high risk/high reward style though.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Overall? It's really hard to say because they both controlled games in such different ways. Over the course of a decent sample of games, I would easily take Lidstrom's best over Leetch's best.

On his best day? You probably pick Leetch, who was more of a high risk/high reward player than Lidstrom. I'm not sure why we should ignore the downside to the high risk/high reward style though.

I don't think anyone does ignore the downside though. We all saw the downside later on when Leetch's decision-making became more questionable, and it certainly drags Leetch's career beneath Lidstrom's. Personally, I'm partial to players who took risks intelligently (Bourque being the best example), even if it left them slightly more vulnerable (less than "perfect" if you will), because there is greater value to be gained from a skater taking smart chances than someone simply ensuring that the other team doesn't score.

Obviously Lidstrom did more than just the latter, but to the extent that Leetch at his best could do the former, I take Leetch at his highest level of play over Lidstrom at his. Career Lidstrom, Peak Leetch. I would've liked to have seen Lidstrom in a situation in which he was depended upon to produce even-strength offense to see how he would handle a more risk-based coaching system, but the only times we've seen him out of the red-and-white were the international tournaments... none at which he left a lasting impression.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't think anyone does ignore the downside though. We all saw the downside later on when Leetch's decision-making became more questionable, and it certainly drags Leetch's career beneath Lidstrom's. Personally, I'm partial to players who took risks intelligently (Bourque being the best example), even if it left them slightly more vulnerable (less than "perfect" if you will), because there is greater value to be gained from a skater taking smart chances than someone simply ensuring that the other team doesn't score.

Obviously Lidstrom did more than just the latter, but to the extent that Leetch at his best could do the former, I take Leetch at his highest level of play over Lidstrom at his. Career Lidstrom, Peak Leetch. I would've liked to have seen Lidstrom in a situation in which he was depended upon to produce even-strength offense to see how he would handle a more risk-based coaching system, but the only times we've seen him out of the red-and-white were the international tournaments... none at which he left a lasting impression.

This is about as well as it can be put. Good post.

(I don't have the time right now to explain why I was up in arms earlier but don't worry, I will when I get back )

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

A misleading comparison since you are punishing Lidstrom for playing in the playoffs at a younger age than Zubov and then as an age after which Zubov retired.

Zubov first played in the playoffs at the age of 23 in 1994. His last playoffs were in 2008 at the age of 37.

Defensemen points per game in the playoffs from 1994 to 2008 (min 50 games):

1. Leetch 1.01 over 72 games (only played in the playoffs once after 1997)
2. Coffey 0.77 over 64 games (last season 1998)
3. Lidstrom 0.74 over 196 games
4. MacInnis 0.74 over 89 games (last season 2003)
5. Bourque 0.72 over 75 games (last season 2001)
6. Zubov 0.71 over 164 games
7. Pronger 0.69 over 134 games (first season 1996)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...at=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points_per_game

Lidstrom outscored Zubov in the playoffs on a per-game basis over the course of Zubov's career.

If you extend the time frame to 2011 (Lidstrom is now 40 years old, 3 years older than Zubov retired), his PPG actually goes up slightly to 0.75

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...at=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points_per_game

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.

That's a long post to try to explain why Zubov looks just as good offensively as Lidstrom in the playoffs.

I'll counter with one point in Zubov's favor: He didn't play for the Red Wings for his whole career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think anyone does ignore the downside though. We all saw the downside later on when Leetch's decision-making became more questionable, and it certainly drags Leetch's career beneath Lidstrom's. Personally, I'm partial to players who took risks intelligently (Bourque being the best example), even if it left them slightly more vulnerable (less than "perfect" if you will), because there is greater value to be gained from a skater taking smart chances than someone simply ensuring that the other team doesn't score.

Obviously Lidstrom did more than just the latter, but to the extent that Leetch at his best could do the former, I take Leetch at his highest level of play over Lidstrom at his. Career Lidstrom, Peak Leetch. I would've liked to have seen Lidstrom in a situation in which he was depended upon to produce even-strength offense to see how he would handle a more risk-based coaching system, but the only times we've seen him out of the red-and-white were the international tournaments... none at which he left a lasting impression.

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?

That's a long post to try to explain why Zubov looks just as good offensively as Lidstrom in the playoffs.

I'll counter with one point in Zubov's favor: He didn't play for the Red Wings for his whole career.

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?

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's a long post to try to explain why Zubov looks just as good offensively as Lidstrom in the playoffs.

I'll counter with one point in Zubov's favor: He didn't play for the Red Wings for his whole career.

What kind of argument is that?

Are we going to hold that against every player who played on great teams?

Also perhaps just maybe Lidstrom was in part responsible for the turn around of the Red Wings fortunes as they weren't exactly a powerhouse before he got there either.

I like Zubov as a player and personally I rank him and Lidstrom pretty close offensively but it's not like Zubov played on lousy teams.

 

[thom]

When you look at at a players career you must look at his prime years and what he meant to the club and league.Points per game is important but not as important as his productivity in his prime years

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

But at his peak, it wasn't often enough to off-set the offense he created relative to Lidstrom.

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?

I've already made the argument to you that I would take 1993-94 Scott Stevens over most defensemen, including Lidstrom at his absolute best (2000, 2006, 2008). MacInnis had years in his late 30s in which he traded Norris Trophies with prime Lidstrom (1999, 2003). He just had the misfortune of having his best season come head-to-head with one of Ray Bourque's best offensive years in 1990-91.

No, I don't think Lidstrom peaked particularly high relative to others at his position. He's more like the Brodeur of modern defensemen, in my eyes.


It's not a matter of preferring offense, TDDM: it's about contributing. When a Brian Leetch or a Ray Bourque or a Bobby Orr is taking intelligent risks, Lidstrom's game is much closer to zero-sum than that of the offensive defenseman who isn't biding his time until the powerplay.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Difference Makers

But at his peak, it wasn't often enough to off-set the offense he created relative to Lidstrom.



I've already made the argument to you that I would take 1993-94 Scott Stevens over most defensemen, including Lidstrom at his absolute best (2000, 2006, 2008). MacInnis had years in his late 30s in which he traded Norris Trophies with prime Lidstrom (1999, 2003). He just had the misfortune of having his best season come head-to-head with one of Ray Bourque's best offensive years in 1990-91.

No, I don't think Lidstrom peaked particularly high relative to others at his position. He's more like the Brodeur of modern defensemen, in my eyes.


It's not a matter of preferring offense, TDDM: it's about contributing. When a Brian Leetch or a Ray Bourque or a Bobby Orr is taking intelligent risks, Lidstrom's game is much closer to zero-sum than that of the offensive defenseman who isn't biding his time until the powerplay.

The basic issue is that starting with Bobby Orr, dmen were viewed as potential difference makers offensively. Harvey, for a long time, under Dick Irvin Sr. was held back in a stricter defensive interpretation of the position.

The other dmen that followed Orr thru Bourque and Leetch were encouraged offensively if the skills were there. this started changing in the last twenty years going back to the traditional defensive role for defensemen where the position was defined in terms of not losing the game as opposed to being that extra offensive weapon.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Sure

Leetch is the best defenseman at transitioning the puck from the defensive zone to the offensive zone that I've ever seen; this is true. (Coffey was past his prime by the time I really started following hockey).

My eye test also tells me that Lidstrom could put up a lot more points than he does if he rushed the puck up ice, rather than just providing supporting offense.

Anyway, I don't see why you're so up in arms; the adjusted stats show that Leetch produced more, even taking the more offensive league into account.

Not sure as Lidstrom's game is very linear based on puck movement. Similarities to Doug Harvey without the risk taking that Harvey showed under Toe Blake.

Also Lidstrom does not play on the edge - stretching the offensive or transition zones, which is essential to high scoring defensemen. Will try to find clips to illustrate.

 

[Killion]

The basic issue is that starting with Bobby Orr, dmen were viewed as potential difference makers offensively. Harvey, for a long time, under Dick Irvin Sr. was held back in a stricter defensive interpretation of the position.

The other dmen that followed Orr thru Bourque and Leetch were encouraged offensively if the skills were there. this started changing in the last twenty years going back to the traditional defensive role for defensemen where the position was defined in terms of not losing the game as opposed to being that extra offensive weapon.

...and really C58 it all started with guys who watched, played with or against Eddie Shore in the 30's, who'd retired & or aged to the point that they were coaching at the amateur levels in the 40's, 50's & 60's. Eddie grew up playing when the Rover position was still in use, though he played Forward, converted to Defence at about 23yrs of age. The WCHL & the PCHL were still using Rovers until 1921, the forerunner to the NHL ,the NHA, doing away with that position in 1917. "Experiments" like Orr under Bucko MacDonald up in Parry Sound & so forth. Brad Park. Selwood. There were quite a few of them & I remember clearly pre-Orr playing with & against several of that ilk, openly encouraged by the coaching fraternity despite the inherent risks, getting caught up ice & so on. Pretty steady supply of em' from the early 60's onward. Seriously tourqe'd up upon Orrs arrival & thereafter of course.

 

[Hobnobs]

But at his peak, it wasn't often enough to off-set the offense he created relative to Lidstrom.



I've already made the argument to you that I would take 1993-94 Scott Stevens over most defensemen, including Lidstrom at his absolute best (2000, 2006, 2008). MacInnis had years in his late 30s in which he traded Norris Trophies with prime Lidstrom (1999, 2003). He just had the misfortune of having his best season come head-to-head with one of Ray Bourque's best offensive years in 1990-91.

No, I don't think Lidstrom peaked particularly high relative to others at his position. He's more like the Brodeur of modern defensemen, in my eyes.


It's not a matter of preferring offense, TDDM: it's about contributing. When a Brian Leetch or a Ray Bourque or a Bobby Orr is taking intelligent risks, Lidstrom's game is much closer to zero-sum than that of the offensive defenseman who isn't biding his time until the powerplay.

So Macinnis should be excused for not being the best in his prime but Lidström should be punished for it? Nice logic there.

 

[WingsFan95]

Messier is a top 20 skater.

He was a good bit above the likes of Yzerman, Sakic and Hull for sure.

No.....

 

[quoipourquoi]

So Macinnis should be excused for not being the best in his prime but Lidström should be punished for it? Nice logic there.

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.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Macinnis in 1991 was not exactly a defensive stalwart