Lidstrom's place in history - ALL DISCUSSIONS OF LIDSTROM'S "ALL TIME RANKING" HERE

[BraveCanadian]

It shows how strong their PP was without him and gives us an idea of how much Lidstrom improved or reduced its effectiveness.

Until you guys drag out the effectiveness of the Detroit powerplay without Lidstrom proving otherwise, I'm going to go with the fact that him being as effective as Bourque with a minute less per game on the PP gives Detroit's team powerplay rating a pretty solid lift.

The rest can be explained by the fact that Detroit had some depth.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Until you guys drag out the effectiveness of the Detroit powerplay without Lidstrom proving otherwise, I'm going to go with the fact that him being as effective as Bourque with a minute less per game on the PP gives Detroit's team powerplay rating a pretty solid lift.

The rest can be explained by the fact that Detroit had some depth.

The "fact" actually is that Lidstrom in his prime with a minute less in PP time was as effective as Bourque in his twilight years.
Lets just keep that clear shall we

And yes, I would love to have total team PP minutes for those years for better context but I haven't found any.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Let me try and make it as generous as I can for Lidstrom:

What I did was normalize their PP scoring to a 75% environment. Now, we have fixed for PP ice time, assuming that % does correlate with ice time. Moreover, we are completely ignoring team strength; not factored into an ES or PP calculation. Sorted by adjusted points (1:1 equivalency PP to ES points)

Career | | | | | |
Player | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | Equalized % | Total | Adj total | PP%
Bobby Orr | 75 | 55 | 43 | 130 | 118 | 96%
Paul Coffey | 46 | 35 | 34 | 81 | 80 | 78%
Denis Potvin | 40 | 41 | 36 | 81 | 76 | 86%
Ray Bourque | 39 | 39 | 34 | 78 | 73 | 87%
Brian Leetch | 36 | 39 | 34 | 75 | 70 | 87%
Al MacInnis | 32 | 42 | 37 | 74 | 69 | 86%
Nicklas Lidstrom | 33 | 34 | 35 | 67 | 68 | 72%
Brad Park | 36 | 32 | 30 | 68 | 66 | 80%
Phil Housley | 35 | 33 | 29 | 68 | 64 | 84%
Sergei Zubov | 33 | 34 | 31 | 67 | 64 | 82%
Guy Lapointe | 31 | 28 | 33 | 59 | 64 | 64%
Larry Robinson | 35 | 19 | 29 | 54 | 64 | 49%
Larry Murphy | 34 | 25 | 29 | 59 | 63 | 65%
Scott Niedermayer | 31 | 26 | 30 | 57 | 61 | 64%
Rob Blake | 30 | 26 | 30 | 56 | 60 | 66%
Chris Pronger | 27 | 29 | 32 | 56 | 59 | 67%
Borje Salming | 31 | 22 | 27 | 53 | 58 | 62%
Scott Stevens | 31 | 14 | 26 | 45 | 57 | 40%
J.C. Tremblay | 32 | 22 | 24 | 54 | 56 | 69%
Chris Chelios | 27 | 20 | 29 | 47 | 56 | 52%
Zdeno Chara | 24 | 17 | 30 | 41 | 54 | 42%
Serge Savard | 25 | 9 | 28 | 34 | 53 | 24%
Jacques Laperriere | 26 | 9 | 19 | 35 | 45 | 35%
Rod Langway | 20 | 3 | 23 | 23 | 43 | 10%
| | | | | |
Prime | | | | | |
Player | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | Equalized % | Total | Adj total | PP%
Bobby Orr | 80 | 56 | 44 | 136 | 124 | 96%
Paul Coffey | 60 | 38 | 34 | 98 | 94 | 83%
Denis Potvin | 44 | 47 | 37 | 91 | 81 | 95%
Ray Bourque | 44 | 39 | 33 | 83 | 77 | 89%
Brad Park | 46 | 35 | 31 | 81 | 77 | 84%
Brian Leetch | 40 | 41 | 34 | 81 | 74 | 91%
Guy Lapointe | 40 | 34 | 34 | 74 | 74 | 75%
Nicklas Lidstrom | 36 | 38 | 37 | 74 | 73 | 78%
Larry Robinson | 40 | 28 | 32 | 68 | 72 | 66%
Phil Housley | 41 | 35 | 30 | 76 | 71 | 87%
Larry Murphy | 45 | 28 | 26 | 73 | 71 | 80%
Borje Salming | 41 | 32 | 30 | 73 | 71 | 81%
Al MacInnis | 34 | 42 | 36 | 76 | 70 | 88%
Rob Blake | 40 | 32 | 30 | 72 | 70 | 79%
Chris Pronger | 32 | 36 | 38 | 68 | 70 | 72%
Scott Niedermayer | 37 | 33 | 31 | 70 | 68 | 79%
Zdeno Chara | 30 | 25 | 31 | 55 | 61 | 60%
Sergei Zubov | 29 | 35 | 31 | 64 | 60 | 84%
Scott Stevens | 31 | 14 | 28 | 45 | 59 | 38%
Chris Chelios | 30 | 30 | 28 | 60 | 58 | 79%
Serge Savard | 28 | 13 | 29 | 41 | 57 | 34%
J.C. Tremblay | 32 | 22 | 24 | 54 | 56 | 69%
Jacques Laperriere | 26 | 9 | 19 | 35 | 45 | 36%
Rod Langway | 22 | 4 | 21 | 26 | 43 | 14%

He finishes around 7th/8th. On the PP, he is tied for 7th in career and a strong 4th in his prime.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The "fact" actually is that Lidstrom in his prime with a minute less in PP time was as effective as Bourque in his twilight years.
Lets just keep that clear shall we

I was very clear that we only have data for Bourque near the end of his career.

Just so we're also clear: that it is a pretty massive difference.

If I did the math correctly it was taking Bourque almost two more minutes of powerplay time on average to equal what Lidstrom was producing at that point.

And with four seasons of data we're around the ~20% mark for their careers.

And yes, I would love to have total team PP minutes for those years for better context but I haven't found any.

Yeah I am sure we could find it but I just don't find it worth the time.

Everyone is so entrenched in their position they just twist everything to fit their preconceived notion anyways.

I generally just pipe in to defend Lidstrom here and there because most of the arguments and statistical gymnastics being used to try and tear him down lately are absurd.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I was very clear that we only have data for Bourque near the end of his career.

Just so we're also clear: that it is a pretty massive difference.

If I did the math correctly it was taking Bourque almost two more minutes of powerplay time on average to equal what Lidstrom was producing at that point.

And with four seasons of data we're around the ~20% mark for their careers.



Yeah I am sure we could find it but I just don't find it worth the time.

Everyone is so entrenched in their position they just twist everything to fit their preconceived notion anyways.

I generally just pipe in to defend Lidstrom here and there because most of the arguments and statistical gymnastics being used to try and tear him down lately are absurd.

Again, assuming that PP% correlates well with PP ice time (by Devil's statement), over their careers, Bourque and Lidstrom are almost equal at PP production. Lidstrom is a hair better.

Considering that Bourque definitely had worse teammates than Lidstrom did, it is not unreasonable to take the above fact and then elevate Bourque to a higher level

 

[Rhiessan71]

Again, assuming that PP% correlates well with PP ice time (by Devil's statement), over their careers, Bourque and Lidstrom are almost equal at PP production. Lidstrom is a hair better.

Considering that Bourque definitely had worse teammates than Lidstrom did, it is not unreasonable to take the above fact and then elevate Bourque to a higher level

I don't think you would need to elevate Bourque over Lidstrom for PP production. Just call it close and set them together in the tier below Orr and MacInnis. No one is going to make a case for either one being a tier above the other for PP QBing.
I'm not even sure why we're arguing over PP production, I've always thought and said in previous threads like this, that they were close to one another for PP QBing.
It has always been in ES production that Bourque walks away with it.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I don't think you would need to elevate Bourque over Lidstrom for PP production. Just call it close and set them together in the tier below Orr and MacInnis. No one is going to make a case for either one being a tier above the other for PP QBing.
I'm not even sure why we're arguing over PP production, I've always thought and said in previous threads like this, that they were close to one another for PP QBing.
It has always been in ES production that Bourque walks away with it.

And you are wrong. It's been shown repeatedly Lidstrom and Bourque's scoring ratio is similar at even strength and on the power play, albeit with Bourque simply scoring more altogether.

I may have missed something, but wasn't it pointed out recently Bourque's reliance on the power play for scoring in the playoffs was much higher than Lidstrom's?

 

[overpass]

I'm not entirely following all the statistical gymnastics but there appears to be an assumption that scoring points is the only way to improve a team's power play. The TmPP+ stats I originally posted on the strength of team power plays are for the net success of the power plays, which also includes the ability to prevent shorthanded goals.

Bourque's teams over his career obtained about 50% of their value above average by scoring more PP goals. The other 50% came from the fact that they allowed very few shorthanded goals. In fact, Bourque may have the best record of any post-expansion defenceman when it comes to playing for teams that allowed very few shorties.

 

[Rhiessan71]

And you are wrong. It's been shown repeatedly Lidstrom and Bourque's scoring ratio is similar at even strength and on the power play, albeit with Bourque simply scoring more altogether.

I may have missed something, but wasn't it pointed out recently Bourque's reliance on the power play for scoring in the playoffs was much higher than Lidstrom's?

Sorry, that's just simply not true and the playoff thing is actually completely the other way around.

(Shared seasons in bold)
Bourque
79/80 GP-80 P-65 ES-36 PP-27 SH-2 ES/G-0.45(55%) PP/G-0.34(42%)
80/81 GP-67 P-56 ES-31 PP-24 SH-1 ES/G-0.46(55%) PP/G-0.36(43%)
81/82 GP-65 P-66 ES-38 PP-25 SH-3 ES/G-0.58(58%) PP/G-0.38(38%)
82/83 GP-65 P-73 ES-42 PP-29 SH-2 ES/G-0.65(52%) PP/G-0.45(40%)
83/84 GP-78 P-96 ES-53 PP-39 SH-4 ES/G-0.68(55%) PP/G-0.50(41%)
84/85 GP-73 P-86 ES-47 PP-35 SH-4 ES/G-0.64(55%) PP/G-0.48(41%)
85/86 GP-74 P-77 ES-30 PP-44 SH-3 ES/G-0.41(39%) PP/G-0.59(57%)
86/87 GP-78 P-95 ES-59 PP-33 SH-3 ES/G-0.76(62%) PP/G-0.42(35%)
87/88 GP-78 P-81 ES-46 PP-34 SH-1 ES/G-0.59(57%) PP/G-0.44(42%)
88/89 GP-60 P-61 ES-34 PP-27 SH-0 ES/G-0.57(56%) PP/G-0.45(44%)
89/90 GP-76 P-84 ES-37 PP-47 SH-0 ES/G-0.49(44%) PP/G-0.62(56%)
90/91 GP-76 P-94 ES-49 PP-45 SH-0 ES/G-0.65(52%) PP/G-0.59(48%)
91/92 GP-80 P-81 ES-45 PP-35 SH-1 ES/G-0.56(56%) PP/G-0.44(43%)
92/93 GP-78 P-82 ES-36 PP-41 SH-5 ES/G-0.46(44%) PP/G-0.53(50%)
93/94 GP-72 P-91 ES-34 PP-52 SH-5 ES/G-0.47(37%) PP/G-0.72(57%)
94/95 GP-46 P-43 ES-14 PP-29 SH-0 ES/G-0.30(33%) PP/G-0.63(67%)
95/96 GP-82 P-82 ES-42 PP-38 SH-2 ES/G-0.51(51%) PP/G-0.46(46%)
96/97 GP-62 P-50 ES-33 PP-17 SH-6 ES/G-0.53(66%) PP/G-0.27(34%)
97/98 GP-82 P-48 ES-16 PP-30 SH-2 ES/G-0.20(33%) PP/G-0.37(63%)
98/99 GP-81 P-57 ES-16 PP-40 SH-1 ES/G-0.20(28%) PP/G-0.49(70%)
99/00 GP-79 P-52 ES-15 PP-37 SH-0 ES/G-0.19(29%) PP/G-0.47(71%)
00/01 GP-80 P-59 ES-24 PP-33 SH-2 ES/G-0.30(41%) PP/G-0.41(56%)

Lidstrom
91/92 GP-80 P-60 ES-28 PP-31 SH-1 ES/G-0.35(47%) PP/G-0.39(52%)
92/93 GP-84 P-41 ES-17 PP-20 SH-4 ES/G-0.20(41%) PP/G-0.24(49%)
93/94 GP-84 P-56 ES-36 PP-18 SH-2 ES/G-0.43(64%) PP/G-0.21(32%)
94/95 GP-43 P-26 ES-15 PP-11 SH-0 ES/G-0.35(58%) PP/G-0.26(42%)
95/96 GP-81 P-67 ES-29 PP-37 SH-1 ES/G-0.36(43%) PP/G-0.46(55%)
96/97 GP-79 P-57 ES-26 PP-30 SH-1 ES/G-0.33(46%) PP/G-0.38(53%)
97/98 GP-80 P-59 ES-23 PP-33 SH-3 ES/G-0.29(39%) PP/G-0.41(56%)
98/99 GP-81 P-57 ES-24 PP-29 SH-4 ES/G-0.30(42%) PP/G-0.36(51%)
99/00 GP-81 P-73 ES-37 PP-31 SH-5 ES/G-0.46(51%) PP/G-0.38(42%)
00/01 GP-82 P-71 ES-27 PP-43 SH-1 ES/G-0.33(38%) PP/G-0.52(61%)
01/02 GP-78 P-59 ES-29 PP-30 SH-0 ES/G-0.37(49%) PP/G-0.38(51%)
02/03 GP-82 P-62 ES-30 PP-30 SH-2 ES/G-0.37(48%) PP/G-0.37(48%)
03/04 GP-81 P-38 ES-14 PP-21 SH-3 ES/G-0.17(37%) PP/G-0.26(55%)
05/06 GP-80 P-80 ES-30 PP-50 SH-0 ES/G-0.38(38%) PP/G-0.63(63%)
06/07 GP-80 P-62 ES-26 PP-33 SH-3 ES/G-0.33(42%) PP/G-0.41(53%)
07/08 GP-76 P-70 ES-35 PP-34 SH-1 ES/G-0.46(50%) PP/G-0.45(49%)
08/09 GP-78 P-59 ES-25 PP-33 SH-1 ES/G-0.32(42%) PP/G-0.42(56%)
09/10 GP-82 P-49 ES-26 PP-20 SH-3 ES/G-0.32(53%) PP/G-0.24(41%)
10/11 GP-82 P-62 ES-22 PP-39 SH-1 ES/G-0.27(35%) PP/G-0.48(63%)
11/12 GP-70 P-34 ES-17 PP-17 SH-0 ES/G-0.24(50%) PP/G-0.24(50%)

Total Reg Season
Bourque ES/G-0.48(48%) PP/G-0.47(48%)
Lidstrom ES/G-0.33(45%) PP/G-0.38(52%)
*Bourque's first 18 years ES/G-0.54(52%) PP/G-0.48(45%)*

Playoffs
Bourque ES/G-0.41(48%) PP/G-0.42(49%)
Lidstrom ES/G-0.25(36%) PP/G-0.42(61%)

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Lidstrom was the common factor across that entire time.

None of the Selke winners that you think call into question his defense were there the whole time.

Lidstrom's career lasted from 91-92 to 11-12.

He played with Fedorov (two-time winner) from 91-92 to 02-03. 60% of his career.

He played with Kris Draper (one-time winner) from 93-94 to 10-11. 85% of his career.

He played with Steve Yzerman (one-time winner) from 91-92 to 05-06. 70% of his career.

He played with Pavel Datsyuk (three-time winner) from 01-02 to 11-12. 50% of his career.

The only time Lidstrom DID NOT have a former or reigning Selke winner in his lineup was his first three years in the league, prior to Fedorov winning his first one. The first 15% of his career.

After that, he played with the player judged to be the best defensive forward seven times out of his twenty seasons. And for a full 50% of his career, he played with ALL of Fedorov, Yzerman and Draper.

No other defenseman has ever been so lucky with defensive forwards. Ever.

Now. . . are you starting to see some other common factors there besides just Lidstrom?

Add to this Hollands post-lockout idea that goaltending was the position that had the easiest replacement value and I think you're barking up the wrong tree altogether.

Largely irrelevant what the GM thought about his goaltending. Although I wonder if he reconsidered that position after starting Legace in the 2006 playoffs and losing to an eigth-place Oilers team? Lidstrom, by the way, was -4 in six games that series. . . suggesting that, yeah, he was getting some help when he had competent teammates.

I mean, you did see Nicklas Lidstrom play?

Yes, I did. I also saw Orr, Bourque, Robinson, Coffey and a lot of others play. I just find it funny how any time any of those guys get brought up in comparison to Lidstrom, they get denigrated for era/lack of competition/playing on great teams.

And yet, Lidstrom played on a powerhouse team his entire career, never played in anything but a defensively sound system, and benefited from the best collection of defensive forwards that any blueliner has ever been graced with. But we're not allowed to mention any of that.

In fact, same thing happens with all the '90 era Red Wings. There's another active thread here with much the same group of Lidstrom-boosters posting about how Sergei Fedorov is as good or better than Lafleur. They mention his defense, but fail to mention that he played with (in their minds) the best or second-best defenseman of all-time. Meanwhile, Lafleur gets downgraded for the quality of his team. . . and the fact the Red Wings put together a few seasons comparable to the Habs dynasty gets neglected. Curious, is all.

Look, I don't even like the Selke as a measure of defensive prowess. I'm on record saying that in another thread. All I'm saying is: if we want beat a dead horse about European competition/post-expansion dilution of talent/80s offense/etc than let's start to admit that Lidstrom and pals had a few things going in their favour, too.

 

[lazerbullet]

Yes, I did. I also saw Orr, Bourque, Robinson, Coffey and a lot of others play. I just find it funny how any time any of those guys get brought up in comparison to Lidstrom, they get denigrated for era/lack of competition/playing on great teams.

They do?
Strangely, I see it exactly the other way around. In most cases, it's Lidstrom who gets beaten down, because he played for Detroit or his competition was weak.

I mean it has been for years something like this... Lidstrom is good because he plays with Yzerman and Fedorov. Fedorov is good because he plays with Lidstrom and Yzerman. Yzerman is good because he plays with Lidstrom and Fedorov. Later the "love triangle" changed to Lidstrom-Datsyuk-Zetterberg. And as far the competition goes then everyone and their dog knows that Lidstrom competed against some plugs.

 

[habsfanatics*]

I am thoroughly convinced that Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom, it's close, yet clear imo.

Nothing in these threads will ever change my mind. The two best dmen of all time were Bruins. I hate to say that, but it's true imo.

I won't put Lidstrom down to support my view. I think Bourque's game speaks for itself and he doesn't need over-exaggerations or the downgrading of Lidstrom to achieve a higher ranking.

Bourque was more rounded and could hurt you more places on the ice. For everyone that punishes Bourque's offense for peaking in high scoring times, it would only seem fair to do the same to Lidstrom's defence in lower scoring times, yet it never seems to be done. From seeing both of their careers in entirety there is simply no way I can put lidstrom ahead of Bourque. As far as peak goes, there are a few more ahead of Lids, but I have no problem putting Lids ahead of them based on longevity and longer prime.

It depends on what we're judging here, is the best? In which case Lids would be hard-pressed to make top 5 on my list or is it who had the better overall career? In which case lids would be 3rd on my list. Lids advantage on career and longevity just isn't there with Bourque imo, there isn't enough to make up the peak gap, and I would argue that Bourque's longevity is even more impressive anyways.

All the nitpicking about pp% and pp strength seem to be an attempt to degrade Lidstrom and I don't think that's fair. We have to examine cause and effect here. Was Lidstrom the beneficiary of a solid pp or was he the catalyst? I lean towards the latter, pp quarterback is the most integral part of pp imo.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I am thoroughly convinced that Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom, it's close, yet clear imo.

Nothing in these threads will ever change my mind. The two best dmen of all time were Bruins. I hate to say that, but it's true imo.

I won't put Lidstrom down to support my view. I think Bourque's game speaks for itself and he doesn't need over-exaggerations or the downgrading of Lidstrom to achieve a higher ranking.

Bourque was more rounded and could hurt you more places on the ice. For everyone that punishes Bourque's offense for peaking in high scoring times, it would only seem fair to do the same to Lidstrom's defence in lower scoring times, yet it never seems to be done. From seeing both of their careers in entirety there is simply no way I can put lidstrom ahead of Bourque. As far as peak goes, there are a few more ahead of Lids, but I have no problem putting Lids ahead of them based on longevity and longer prime.

It depends on what we're judging here, is the best? In which case Lids would be hard-pressed to make top 5 on my list or is it who had the better overall career? In which case lids would be 3rd on my list. Lids advantage on career and longevity just isn't there with Bourque imo, there isn't enough to make up the peak gap, and I would argue that Bourque's longevity is even more impressive anyways.

All the nitpicking about pp% and pp strength seem to be an attempt to degrade Lidstrom and I don't think that's fair. We have to examine cause and effect here. Was Lidstrom the beneficiary of a solid pp or was he the catalyst? I lean towards the latter, pp quarterback is the most integral part of pp imo.

I understand that the pp quarterback can be the most important player on the PP, but it isn't like everyone else is irrelevant.

With Lidstrom and Bourque being so close, the team-factor is something that requires deep scrutiny. If you equalize for PP% contribution, Lidstrom is 3% more productive on the PP than Bourque. Don't you think the largely inferior cast Bourque played with negates and overtakes that value?

 

[habsfanatics*]

I understand that the pp quarterback can be the most important player on the PP, but it isn't like everyone else is irrelevant.

With Lidstrom and Bourque being so close, the team-factor is something that requires deep scrutiny. If you equalize for PP% contribution, Lidstrom is 3% more productive on the PP than Bourque. Don't you think the largely inferior cast Bourque played with negates and overtakes that value?

Perhaps, we will likely never know the complete truth in this regard and I find it largely irrelevant. Bourque is ahead IMO regardless if he was less effective on the pp. he was more effective at ES where the majority of the game is played. Lidstrom closes the gap some on longevity in his later years, but it's not enough to close the gap from their earlier years, he did better later, bourque was better earlier and there is a 0% chance lids became a better player at 35-40yrs old. When they were both in the league bourque was still better, bordering on retirement. To me, it's somewhat close, yet quite clearly bourque.
Post is a mess, posting from an iPhone again

 

[Hardyvan123]

Perhaps, we will likely never know the complete truth in this regard and I find it largely irrelevant. Bourque is ahead IMO regardless if he was less effective on the pp. he was more effective at ES where the majority of the game is played. Lidstrom closes the gap some on longevity in his later years, but it's not enough to close the gap from their earlier years, he did better later, bourque was better earlier and there is a 0% chance lids became a better player at 35-40yrs old. When they were both in the league bourque was still better, bordering on retirement. To me, it's somewhat close, yet quite clearly bourque.
Post is a mess, posting from an iPhone again

Of course no one gets better after age 35 but has any Dman aged better between the ages of 35-41?

As for Ray being better than Nick in their time in the league, Norris voting reflects this as being true until 96 (Nick aged 21-25 Ray 31-35) but after that Nick was clearly better (age 26-30, Ray 36-40).

Not that the above really means anything though as it's unfair to both guys to compare their time in the league in the way that you did.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Of course no one gets better after age 35

How many times have people alleged that Al MacInnis did exactly that when they argue for Lidstrom's strength of competition?

 

[Dark Shadows]

How many times have people alleged that Al MacInnis did exactly that when they argue for Lidstrom's strength of competition?

A Stance I always argue against since what I saw in Mac's prime overshadowed his later years by a longshot.

 

[Rhiessan71]

A Stance I always argue against since what I saw in Mac's prime overshadowed his later years by a longshot.

Exactly.
Al was a more complete D-man later on but he was NOT a better player.
It's like saying the Stevie Y that won the Selke was a better player than the one that won the Pearson.
Anyone and I mean anyone that watched these two players in the late 80's/early 90's knows what we're talking about.

 

[Hardyvan123]

How many times have people alleged that Al MacInnis did exactly that when they argue for Lidstrom's strength of competition?

Mac was a much more complete player in his later years and his offense leveled off quite well as he aged.

A Stance I always argue against since what I saw in Mac's prime overshadowed his later years by a longshot.

If one only looks at counting raw stats sure but in context Dman scoring went down in the later 90's than from the 80's.

Less Dmen made the top 50 in scoring and adjusted stats show this as well.

Al's time in St Louis, time missed by injuries aside, is quite close in terms of overall value given his better defensive game and the changes in defensive and overall scoring as well.

Exactly.
Al was a more complete D-man later on but he was NOT a better player.
It's like saying the Stevie Y that won the Selke was a better player than the one that won the Pearson.
Anyone and I mean anyone that watched these two players in the late 80's/early 90's knows what we're talking about.

Of course Yzermans outlier season where he scored .32 PPG more than in any other of his high scoring seasons will be better than his age 24 season.

a more relevant question is how much of a difference it was between his pure scoring seasons to his more two way ones.

There is also the point that Steve probably had less of a gap in his game from early days to later defensively than Al did but that's subjective and hard to gauge.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Mac was a much more complete player in his later years and his offense leveled off quite well as he aged.

And?

If one only looks at counting raw stats sure but in context Dman scoring went down in the later 90's than from the 80's.

Less Dmen made the top 50 in scoring and adjusted stats show this as well.

Al's time in St Louis, time missed by injuries aside, is quite close in terms of overall value given his better defensive game and the changes in defensive and overall scoring as well.

Prove it!
Show me how the MacInnis with the Blue's in the late 90's was of the same value as the Conn Smythe winning, more than a point a game MacInnis in the late 80's/early 90's.

Of course Yzermans outlier season where he scored .32 PPG more than in any other of his high scoring seasons will be better than his age 24 season.

a more relevant question is how much of a difference it was between his pure scoring seasons to his more two way ones.

There is also the point that Steve probably had less of a gap in his game from early days to later defensively than Al did but that's subjective and hard to gauge.

I'm not just talking about '89, I'm talking the Stevie all around '89, from 87/88-93/94 before he popped his knee.
Only 2 players outscored him in those 7 years and I think you can guess which 2. The gap from Stevie to #4 over than span is almost 100 points and only Hull scored more goals, 412 to 355.

Gretzky GP-493 P-938
Lemieux GP-384 P-863
Yzerman GP-524 P-814
Robitaille GP-561 P-719
Oates GP-514 P-701
Hull GP-535 P-699

 

[Hardyvan123]

Prove it!
Show me how the MacInnis with the Blue's in the late 90's was of the same value as the Conn Smythe winning, more than a point a game MacInnis in the late 80's/early 90's.

This is the Norris voting in his CS year of 89

Chris Chelios, Mtl 226 (37-12-5)
Paul Coffey, Pit 115 (14-14-3) Led all Dmen by 38 points
Al MacInnis, Cgy 57 (3-10-12)
Ray Bourque, Bos 56 (3-8-17) 60 GP
Steve Duchesne, LA 30 (2-5-5)
Brad McCrimmon, Cgy 24 (2-4-2)
Gary Suter, Cgy 15 (2-1-2)
Kevin Lowe, Edm 14 (0-4-2)
Phil Housley, Buf (0-2-5)
Scott Stevens, Wsh 8 (0-1-5) 24 years old
Brian Leetch, NYR 6 (0-1-3) 20 years old
Paul Reinhart, Van 4 (0-1-1) 64 GP
Craig Ludwig, Mtl 1 (0-0-1)

Notice the lack of competition that you always like to argue about, aside form 1 or 2 guys it's really weak in his peak raw stats time.

When I get around to the season by season breakdown of nick and that other guy Al will come up as well.

I've had to bump the start of that back a week because of some time constraints but I'm sure you have already written your comments on it and are ready to copy and paste.

I'm not just talking about '89, I'm talking the Stevie all around '89, from 87/88-93/94 before he popped his knee.
Only 2 players outscored him in those 7 years and I think you can guess which 2. The gap from Stevie to #4 over than span is almost 100 points and only Hull scored more goals, 412 to 355.

Gretzky GP-493 P-938
Lemieux GP-384 P-863
Yzerman GP-524 P-814
Robitaille GP-561 P-719
Oates GP-514 P-701
Hull GP-535 P-699

What you say is all true but the Red wings don't enjoy any real playoff success until Stevie Y becomes a more balanced player and the Red Wings team identity changes from being watch Steve score to look at that strong 2 way strength down the middle with Federov, Steve, Primeau and Draper.

Either way it's really a separate issue from an offensive 1st Dman like Al becoming a more complete player later in his career.

You can look at his adjusted points and Norris voting (and the compettion) to get a better picture of his "value" between the 2 phases of his career. Of course injuries cloud it a bit after 95 as he has only 3 complete seasons, 4 more with around 10 games missed and 2 with around 20.

Still from 95-03 Al is 3rd in dman scoring, along with his improved defensive play.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

I think perhaps that you are looking and reading too much into the raw stats and can't or won't adjust for era here.

 

[Gobias Industries]

This is the Norris voting in his CS year of 89

Of course 1990 and 1991 were much better years for him, but I wouldn't want to show those if I were arguing your viewpoint either.

 

[Epsilon]

Lidstrom's career lasted from 91-92 to 11-12.

He played with Fedorov (two-time winner) from 91-92 to 02-03. 60% of his career.

He played with Kris Draper (one-time winner) from 93-94 to 10-11. 85% of his career.

He played with Steve Yzerman (one-time winner) from 91-92 to 05-06. 70% of his career.

He played with Pavel Datsyuk (three-time winner) from 01-02 to 11-12. 50% of his career.

The only time Lidstrom DID NOT have a former or reigning Selke winner in his lineup was his first three years in the league, prior to Fedorov winning his first one. The first 15% of his career.

After that, he played with the player judged to be the best defensive forward seven times out of his twenty seasons. And for a full 50% of his career, he played with ALL of Fedorov, Yzerman and Draper.

No other defenseman has ever been so lucky with defensive forwards. Ever.

Now. . . are you starting to see some other common factors there besides just Lidstrom?



Largely irrelevant what the GM thought about his goaltending. Although I wonder if he reconsidered that position after starting Legace in the 2006 playoffs and losing to an eigth-place Oilers team? Lidstrom, by the way, was -4 in six games that series. . . suggesting that, yeah, he was getting some help when he had competent teammates.

It's more than a little bizarre that you play up the importance of defensive forwards so much yet almost totally dismiss the impact of goaltending.

Yes, I did. I also saw Orr, Bourque, Robinson, Coffey and a lot of others play. I just find it funny how any time any of those guys get brought up in comparison to Lidstrom, they get denigrated for era/lack of competition/playing on great teams.

Come again? If anything Lidstrom gets hit for playing of a consistently good team that wasn't a traditional dynasty (and therefore he doesn't get the "dynasty boost" that's often credited to certain players, especially O6 Habs).

And yet, Lidstrom played on a powerhouse team his entire career, never played in anything but a defensively sound system, and benefited from the best collection of defensive forwards that any blueliner has ever been graced with. But we're not allowed to mention any of that.

This is a total strawman argument, and completely untrue.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is the Norris voting in his CS year of 89

Chris Chelios, Mtl 226 (37-12-5)
Paul Coffey, Pit 115 (14-14-3) Led all Dmen by 38 points
Al MacInnis, Cgy 57 (3-10-12)
Ray Bourque, Bos 56 (3-8-17) 60 GP
Steve Duchesne, LA 30 (2-5-5)
Brad McCrimmon, Cgy 24 (2-4-2)
Gary Suter, Cgy 15 (2-1-2)
Kevin Lowe, Edm 14 (0-4-2)
Phil Housley, Buf (0-2-5)
Scott Stevens, Wsh 8 (0-1-5) 24 years old
Brian Leetch, NYR 6 (0-1-3) 20 years old
Paul Reinhart, Van 4 (0-1-1) 64 GP
Craig Ludwig, Mtl 1 (0-0-1)

Notice the lack of competition that you always like to argue about, aside form 1 or 2 guys it's really weak in his peak raw stats time.

Chelios at the top of his game, a 113 point Coffey and Bourque that missed 20 games. Al's season wasn't what one would call weak either.
Compared to what, a 57 point Lidstrom and a 37 year old 57 point Bourque....ooookkkk

When I get around to the season by season breakdown of nick and that other guy Al will come up as well.

I've had to bump the start of that back a week because of some time constraints but I'm sure you have already written your comments on it and are ready to copy and paste.

I doubt I'm going to have to write much of anything. I also doubt you're going to do all 22 vs 20 seasons either as I think you're going to discover rather quickly just how behind the Eight Ball Lidstrom really is vs Bourque.
As Devil pointed out earlier, it would prolly be better for Lidstrom to do it by age but then again, I have a pretty good idea why you want to do it by season.
It's going to be very "interesting" to see how you spin 19 AS nods to 12 and 19 top 4 Norris finishes to 12. All that on top of Bourque playing 2 more seasons to boot.

What you say is all true but the Red wings don't enjoy any real playoff success until Stevie Y becomes a more balanced player and the Red Wings team identity changes from being watch Steve score to look at that strong 2 way strength down the middle with Federov, Steve, Primeau and Draper.

The Wings don't enjoy any playoff success until Stevie DOESN'T HAVE TO BE all the Wings scoring.
Honestly, this argument is a joke! Yeah Stevie switching his style is the reason nothing to do with the immense talent they surrounded him with later on...gimme a break.

Either way it's really a separate issue from an offensive 1st Dman like Al becoming a more complete player later in his career.

You can look at his adjusted points and Norris voting (and the compettion) to get a better picture of his "value" between the 2 phases of his career. Of course injuries cloud it a bit after 95 as he has only 3 complete seasons, 4 more with around 10 games missed and 2 with around 20.

Still from 95-03 Al is 3rd in dman scoring, along with his improved defensive play.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

I think perhaps that you are looking and reading too much into the raw stats and can't or won't adjust for era here.

Where is Al an offensive first D-man?
SHOW ME!
Al became a better positional D-man later on but he was never "weak" defensively and he sure as hell didn't take a lot of chances at even strength as evidenced by his point totals in that regard.
From 86/87-93/94 Mac averaged 46 PP points a season and only 32 ES points a season.
Al actually played a lot more like Lidstrom. He didn't have Coffey's or Housley's rushing abilities, nor did he have Bourque's possession skills. He was pretty conservative at even strength and then absolutely unloaded on the PP.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This is the Norris voting in his CS year of 89

Chris Chelios, Mtl 226 (37-12-5)
Paul Coffey, Pit 115 (14-14-3) Led all Dmen by 38 points
Al MacInnis, Cgy 57 (3-10-12)
Ray Bourque, Bos 56 (3-8-17) 60 GP
Steve Duchesne, LA 30 (2-5-5)
Brad McCrimmon, Cgy 24 (2-4-2)
Gary Suter, Cgy 15 (2-1-2)
Kevin Lowe, Edm 14 (0-4-2)
Phil Housley, Buf (0-2-5)
Scott Stevens, Wsh 8 (0-1-5) 24 years old
Brian Leetch, NYR 6 (0-1-3) 20 years old
Paul Reinhart, Van 4 (0-1-1) 64 GP
Craig Ludwig, Mtl 1 (0-0-1)

Notice the lack of competition that you always like to argue about, aside form 1 or 2 guys it's really weak in his peak raw stats time.

I see that Rhiessan has already commented on this, but I wanted to echo that Chelios, Coffey, Bourque, Suter, Housley, and Stevens (perhaps even Lowe) were all somewhere in their "primes", and hardly constituted "weak competition". Think about that... at least four other currently inducted HoF defensemen in their primes at that point, all getting Norris votes.