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

[MastuhNinks]

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.

Contrary to popular belief, Lidstrom didn't have terrible goaltending.

Here's the SV% for the Detroit goalie with the most GP in each of Lidstrom's Norris winning seasons.

2000-2001 - .903 (20th in league)
2001-2002 - .915 (8th in league)
2002-2003 - .912 (14th in league)
2005-2006 - .915 (6th in league)
2006-2007 - .913 (13th in league)
2007-2008 - .914 (14th in league)
2010-2011 - .908 (23rd in league)



So yeah, he only had below average goaltending in 2/7 Norris winning seasons, he had pretty good goaltending in 2 seasons but for the most part it was pretty average goaltending.

Of course, Bourque had better goaltending for a lot of seasons, but I think the point the other user was making is that the fact that Lidstrom was always surrounded by defensive stalwarts never really gets brought up.

 

[Epsilon]

Contrary to popular belief, Lidstrom didn't have terrible goaltending.

Here's the SV% for the Detroit goalie with the most GP in each of Lidstrom's Norris winning seasons.

2000-2001 - .903 (20th in league)
2001-2002 - .915 (8th in league)
2002-2003 - .912 (14th in league)
2005-2006 - .915 (6th in league)
2006-2007 - .913 (13th in league)
2007-2008 - .914 (14th in league)
2010-2011 - .908 (23rd in league)



So yeah, he only had below average goaltending in 2/7 Norris winning seasons, he had pretty good goaltending in 2 seasons but for the most part it was pretty average goaltending.

Of course, Bourque had better goaltending for a lot of seasons, but I think the point the other user was making is that the fact that Lidstrom was always surrounded by defensive stalwarts never really gets brought up.

Which is totally false, it gets brought up all the time. And since I didn't mention Bourque once, I'm not sure why the goaltending he played in front of is relevant to the point I was making.

 

[MastuhNinks]

Which is totally false, it gets brought up all the time. And since I didn't mention Bourque once, I'm not sure why the goaltending he played in front of is relevant to the point I was making.

The thing about Bourque was an assumption on my part, because otherwise I'm not sure why you'd bring up goaltending when Lidstrom had pretty average goaltending throughout his Norris winning seasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Contrary to popular belief, Lidstrom didn't have terrible goaltending.

Here's the SV% for the Detroit goalie with the most GP in each of Lidstrom's Norris winning seasons.

2000-2001 - .903 (20th in league)
2001-2002 - .915 (8th in league)
2002-2003 - .912 (14th in league)
2005-2006 - .915 (6th in league)
2006-2007 - .913 (13th in league)
2007-2008 - .914 (14th in league)
2010-2011 - .908 (23rd in league)



So yeah, he only had below average goaltending in 2/7 Norris winning seasons, he had pretty good goaltending in 2 seasons but for the most part it was pretty average goaltending.

Of course, Bourque had better goaltending for a lot of seasons, but I think the point the other user was making is that the fact that Lidstrom was always surrounded by defensive stalwarts never really gets brought up.

Given how goaltending and defensive performances are often linked, this might not be average goaltending overall, but it's probably below average goaltending for a guy who played behind a Norris winner, right? It might be interesting to look at the goaltending performances of the last 20 Norris winners to see if Detroit's stand out as below average comparatively.

 

[MastuhNinks]

Given how goaltending and defensive performances are often linked, this might not be average goaltending overall, but it's probably below average goaltending for a guy who played behind a Norris winner, right? It might be interesting to look at the goaltending performances of the last 20 Norris winners to see if Detroit's stand out as below average comparatively.

Personally I've never liked linking SV% to defensive play. For example Lidstrom was 4th among Detroit defensemen in on ice SV% in 2010-2011. If you look at the top performers in any given year in on ice SV% there's nothing really noteworthy about them, typically it just indicates lucky players and/or players who played for good goaltenders on teams with good systems. You could say Detroit's system helped out the goaltending, but regardless everyone on the team would be a beneficiary of that defensively anyways so it's kinda a moot point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Personally I've never liked linking SV% to defensive play. For example Lidstrom was 4th among Detroit defensemen in on ice SV% in 2010-2011. If you look at the top performers in any given year in on ice SV% there's nothing really noteworthy about them, typically it just indicates lucky players and/or players who played for good goaltenders on teams with good systems. You could say Detroit's system helped out the goaltending, but regardless everyone on the team would be a beneficiary of that defensively anyways so it's kinda a moot point.

Over a sample size of 15-20 years, I would expect the random variation present in on-ice save percentage to be minimized.

Also, keep in mind that Lidstrom was among the league leaders in all QualComp calculations, and better competition would almost certainly affect his on-ice save percentage.

Even if you think defensemen have no impact on goalie performance, I think it's very likely that goalie performance often increases the perception of a defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

I don't think it's a stretch to call MacInnis "offense first." He never got any votes in those coaches polls for "best defensive defenseman," and he killed fewer penalties over his career than most other HHOF defensemen (including Brian Leetch). MacInnis was pretty good defensively, but he was great offensively.

By the time I really started paying attention to hockey league-wide in the mid 90s, Al Mac definitely had a reputation as mainly an offensive defensemen. I really think he rounded out better in St. Louis.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't think it's a stretch to call MacInnis "offense first." He never got any votes in those coaches polls for "best defensive defenseman," and he killed fewer penalties over his career than most other HHOF defensemen (including Brian Leetch). MacInnis was pretty good defensively, but he was great offensively.

By the time I really started paying attention to hockey league-wide in the mid 90s, Al Mac definitely had a reputation as mainly an offensive defensemen. I really think he rounded out better in St. Louis.

He wasn't an offense first guy though, he never was.
He was an average skater, an average puck handler, he didn't even hold the line that well and didn't try to, not at even strength.
Hell, he didn't even pinch into the O-zone very much, his weapon was always from the point and he tended to stay there.

He wasn't any where near as inclined to jump into the play like Coffey or Housley, not even as much as a balanced guy like Bourque or even as much as a more conservative guy like Chelios.
So I really don't get it?

Like 56-60% (56% career, almost 60% in his prime) of his points came on the power play and only Orr was more successful running a PP.

I'm telling you, I watched him since Junior and he is a hell of a lot more conservative than you think he is.
Out of the top scoring D-men, only Lidstrom was more conservative at even strength IMO

 

[Gobias Industries]

Given how goaltending and defensive performances are often linked, this might not be average goaltending overall, but it's probably below average goaltending for a guy who played behind a Norris winner, right? It might be interesting to look at the goaltending performances of the last 20 Norris winners to see if Detroit's stand out as below average comparatively.

Well I have the excel file, does anyone know how to convert?

 

[MastuhNinks]

Over a sample size of 15-20 years, I would expect the random variation present in on-ice save percentage to be minimized.

Also, keep in mind that Lidstrom was among the league leaders in all QualComp calculations, and better competition would almost certainly affect his on-ice save percentage.

Even if you think defensemen have no impact on goalie performance, I think it's very likely that goalie performance often increases the perception of a defenseman.

Well, I was curious so I threw this together as quick as possible using hockey reference...

1991–92 Brian Leetch - .910 (3rd)
1992–93 Chris Chelios - .906 (3rd)
1993–94 Ray Bourque - .881 (27th)
1994–95 Paul Coffey - .893 (23rd)
1995–96 Chris Chelios - .902 (18th)
1996–97 Brian Leetch - .917 (7th)
1997–98 Rob Blake - .909 (12th)
1998–99 Al MacInnis - .892 (30th)
1999–2000 Chris Pronger - .912 (10th)
2000–01 Nicklas Lidstrom - .903 (20th)
2001–02 Nicklas Lidstrom - .915 (8th)
2002–03 Nicklas Lidstrom - .912 (14th)
2003–04 Scott Niedermayer - .917 (10th)
2005–06 Nicklas Lidstrom - 915 (6th)
2006–07 Nicklas Lidstrom - 913 (13th)
2007–08 Nicklas Lidstrom -.914 (14th)
2008–09 Zdeno Chara - .933 (1st)
2009–10 Duncan Keith - .895 (30th)
2010–11 Nicklas Lidstrom - .908 (23rd)
2011–12 Erik Karlsson - .914 (20th)

The ranks might not be perfect, I used a minimum of 40GP for most seasons but in some instances (e.x. '94-'95 season, '98-'99 when Fuhr played 39 games for Blues) I had to change the parameters. If a goalie was below 30th using my parameters I just marked it as 30th because there can only really be 30 starters of course.

Lidstrom average rank: 14
Overall average rank: 14.6
Average rank excluding Lidstrom: 14.9

There doesn't seem to be any correlation between winning the Norris and having a starting goalie with a high save percentage. The numbers were actually amazingly average.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

He wasn't an offense first guy though, he never was.
...
I'm telling you, I watched him since Junior and he is a hell of a lot more conservative than you think he is.

Totally agree. And this coming from another Habs fan who has been watching him since the epic battles of the late '80s. MacInnis has always been an almost stay-at-home defenseman who managed to get implicated in a whole lot of scoring over the years by keeping the puck in the offensive zone, and using his shot (and the threat of his shot) to both score and open up passing lanes.

He was incredibly effective offensively, but wasn't driven by an "offensive mentality" and thus imo doesn't fit the label of "offensive defenseman". As soon as you say "offensive" defenseman, the connotation is that there must have been some defensive short-comings in there somewhere. This wasn't the case with MacInnis at any point in his career (and I never heard MacInnis attached to an "offense first" reputation in the 80s OR 90s), but the younger generation is either going to have to trust us on that one or get their hands on enough video.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

I wasn't entirely clear and should have posted the results for all 3 years from 89,90,91


Also Coffey, Suter and Housley are almost exclusively considered for their points and in Coffey's case if he played any defense at all he would have fared much better.
90

Ray Bourque 315 (63-0-0) 84 points
Al MacInnis 127 (0-38-13) 90 points
Doug Wilson 40 (0-7-19) 73 points
Paul Coffey 33 (0-7-12) 103 points -25
Phil Housley 32 (0-7-11) 81 points
Al Iafrate 8 (0-2-2) 63 points
Mike Ramsey 4 (0-1-1)
Chris Chelios 3 (0-1-0)
Paul Cavallini 2 (0-0-2)
Craig Ludwig 1 (0-0-1)
Brian Leetch 1 (0-0-1)
Jamie Macoun 1 (0-0-1)

Notice that a "prime" Suter is not included but was 5th in Dman scoring that year. Stevens isn't in the voting either. Nor is Chelios (both due to injuries)

People must have missed big Al's excellent defensive game as other got 2nd place votes like Housley and Iafrate.

now to 91

Ray Bourque 257 (35-27-1) 94 points
Al MacInnis 228 (27-28-9) 103 points
Chris Chelios 56 (2-9-19) 64 points
Brian Leetch 30 (2-0-20) 88 points
Paul Coffey 8 (0-0-8) 93 points (3rd among Dmen)
Kevin Hatcher 7 (0-1-4)
Scott Stevens 6 (0-1-3)
James Patrick 2 (0-0-2)

Part of the problem here is the 1,2,3 voting system I think a 1-5 system might have produced slightly different results.

The bottom line is that not every season has every guy at their peaks or primes.

Mac wasn't Housley like on the back end early in his career but he wasn't nearly as good as he became later on either IMO.

Mac with his Norris win in 99 (at age 35) leads all Dmen in scoring with 62 points, ahead of Ray (who was slipping at this point) and Nick. Part of Al's win was his improved play on the back end IMO.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I wasn't entirely clear and should have posted the results for all 3 years from 89,90,91


Also Coffey, Suter and Housley are almost exclusively considered for their points and in Coffey's case if he played any defense at all he would have fared much better.

I know it is chic to bash Coffey at every opportunity around here but I think you mean if the Penguins had played any defense at all..

 

[quoipourquoi]

Mac with his Norris win in 99 (at age 35) leads all Dmen in scoring with 62 points, ahead of Ray (who was slipping at this point) and Nick. Part of Al's win was his improved play on the back end IMO.

I'm positive that a larger part as to why that was his first Norris Trophy was the lack of a healthy 30-year-old Ray Bourque. Look at the 1990 and 1991 voting you just posted:

1990
38 out of 63 voters believe that Al MacInnis is better than every defenseman in the league who is not Ray Bourque, the unanimous winner. That's 60% of the voters who place him first in a Bourque-less world. You mention Housley (7 votes) and Iafrate (2 votes) as if their small sample of votes are proof that Al MacInnis was poor defensively. Those guys are 20-goal scorers playing on the East coast; they're going to get a little attention from somebody. We just had a big debate about 1998: Think of the minority 1st Place votes that Stevens, Pronger, and Murphy got despite having fewer points than Lidstrom. Is that indicative that Nicklas Lidstrom was a bad defensive player - in need of improvement to win a trophy? Because that's exactly what you're alleging about Al MacInnis.

1991
66 voters this time, and 94% believe that Ray Bourque is either #1 or #2. So how does 83% of all of the voters believing that Al MacInnis occupies that other spot with Ray Bourque (including 41% saying that Al MacInnis himself is the #1 defenseman) prove that he lacks a defensive game at this point of his career? Because 11 voters (9 of which have MacInnis at least in third-place; MacInnis actually appeared on more ballots than Ray Bourque or anyone else) place high stock on Chelios' 60+ point debut in Chicago? Somehow a different voting system is going to show MacInnis in a worse light?


The bar for a Norris Trophy season was lower in 1999 than it was in either 1990 or 1991, and MacInnis happened to have a really strong offensive season as well (just like he did in 2003). And give him his health in 2001 (54 points in 59 games), and he'd be looking at another 60-70 point season to get the attention of the voters. But it doesn't make him 1990 or 1991 Ray Bourque. That's why there was no Norris for prime MacInnis. He didn't need improvement; he needed easier competition. Not all Norris Trophies are equal. Don't you know that?

 

[Dark Shadows]

Totally agree. And this coming from another Habs fan who has been watching him since the epic battles of the late '80s. MacInnis has always been an almost stay-at-home defenseman who managed to get implicated in a whole lot of scoring over the years by keeping the puck in the offensive zone, and using his shot (and the threat of his shot) to both score and open up passing lanes.

He was incredibly effective offensively, but wasn't driven by an "offensive mentality" and thus imo doesn't fit the label of "offensive defenseman". As soon as you say "offensive" defenseman, the connotation is that there must have been some defensive short-comings in there somewhere. This wasn't the case with MacInnis at any point in his career (and I never heard MacInnis attached to an "offense first" reputation in the 80s OR 90s), but the younger generation is either going to have to trust us on that one or get their hands on enough video.

Exactly how I remember him too.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Exactly how I remember him too.

I just went through a whole whack of Youtube vids and through it all, I couldn't find one goal of Al's from rushing the puck or even of Al rushing the puck in general.
The closest thing I found was him getting a breakaway after getting out of the penalty box and even on that he wound up and blew it by the goalie from the hash marks heh.

What I did find was goal after goal after goal of him shooting from inside the triangle of the blue line to the hash marks.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I just went through a whole whack of Youtube vids and through it all, I couldn't find one goal of Al's from rushing the puck or even of Al rushing the puck in general.
The closest thing I found was him getting a breakaway after getting out of the penalty box and even on that he wound up and blew it by the goalie from the hash marks heh.

What I did find was goal after goal after goal of him shooting from inside the triangle of the blue line to the hash marks.

I agree that MacInnis wasn't a puck rushing defenseman ala Coffey/Bourque etc. which is one reason so much of his production is on the PP. And a reason he didn't get caught as much in my memory as those guys that actually had the puck a lot.

But even you have to admit that he was better defensively when he was older than when he was putting up 100 points.

Not that he was bad then, he just got a fair bit better.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'm positive that a larger part as to why that was his first Norris Trophy was the lack of a healthy 30-year-old Ray Bourque. Look at the 1990 and 1991 voting you just posted:

1990
38 out of 63 voters believe that Al MacInnis is better than every defenseman in the league who is not Ray Bourque, the unanimous winner. That's 60% of the voters who place him first in a Bourque-less world. You mention Housley (7 votes) and Iafrate (2 votes) as if their small sample of votes are proof that Al MacInnis was poor defensively. Those guys are 20-goal scorers playing on the East coast; they're going to get a little attention from somebody. We just had a big debate about 1998: Think of the minority 1st Place votes that Stevens, Pronger, and Murphy got despite having fewer points than Lidstrom. Is that indicative that Nicklas Lidstrom was a bad defensive player - in need of improvement to win a trophy? Because that's exactly what you're alleging about Al MacInnis.

1991
66 voters this time, and 94% believe that Ray Bourque is either #1 or #2. So how does 83% of all of the voters believing that Al MacInnis occupies that other spot with Ray Bourque (including 41% saying that Al MacInnis himself is the #1 defenseman) prove that he lacks a defensive game at this point of his career? Because 11 voters (9 of which have MacInnis at least in third-place; MacInnis actually appeared on more ballots than Ray Bourque or anyone else) place high stock on Chelios' 60+ point debut in Chicago? Somehow a different voting system is going to show MacInnis in a worse light?


The bar for a Norris Trophy season was lower in 1999 than it was in either 1990 or 1991, and MacInnis happened to have a really strong offensive season as well (just like he did in 2003). And give him his health in 2001 (54 points in 59 games), and he'd be looking at another 60-70 point season to get the attention of the voters. But it doesn't make him 1990 or 1991 Ray Bourque. That's why there was no Norris for prime MacInnis. He didn't need improvement; he needed easier competition. Not all Norris Trophies are equal. Don't you know that?

Yep. Even if you look at 88-89 and 93-94 when he finished 3rd you see similar trends.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree that MacInnis wasn't a puck rushing defenseman ala Coffey/Bourque etc. which is one reason so much of his production is on the PP. And a reason he didn't get caught as much in my memory as those guys that actually had the puck a lot.

But even you have to admit that he was better defensively when he was older than when he was putting up 100 points.

Not that he was bad then, he just got a fair bit better.

Oh for sure, I have said that before in fact. His positioning definitely got better but he wasn't poor defensively in the first place and he most certainly wasn't a better PLAYER later on. Smarter yes, better no.

Just like Bourque in 00/01, whether he was a 1rst team all-star and runner up for the Norris or not, he was NOT better than he was pre '97.
Just like the Lidstrom that won the Norris in '11 was NOT as good as the Lidstrom that won in the early 2000's.

Whether or not Lidstrom's competition was as bad as some make out is up for debate (it was extremely inconsistent though, that's a fact) but whether or not it was weaker than the mid 80's-mid 90's is NOT! It most certainly was weaker and less consistent and no amount of spin is gonna change that.
The spin in this case being an attempt to make Mac look better than he was in the late 90's and worse than he was in the early 90's.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Oh for sure, I have said that before in fact. His positioning definitely got better but he wasn't poor defensively in the first place and he most certainly wasn't a better PLAYER later on. Smarter yes, better no.

I think that's a good way to put it. I think he may have been a better skater by the time he was 30, though. A lot of why he was called "Chopper" seemed to have been ironed out of his stride by then, and I think he actually became slightly more mobile despite age having slowed him down a half step. Net result was slightly better positioning and the ability to keep tabs on some of the younger, faster talent that came around in the early 90s. Incredible to think that both MacInnis and Pronger were 30 min/night defensemen on the same team at the same time (considering there's just over a decade between them).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Incredible to think that both MacInnis and Pronger were 30 min/night defensemen on the same team at the same time (considering there's just over a decade between them).

But ultimately kinda depressing that their best season together saw both of them get fluke injuries that kept them out long enough to not challenge for the Norris Trophy while St. Louis lost home-ice to the team that would ultimately eliminate them (MacInnis' eye and Pronger's knee and arm).

2000-01
MacInnis: 59 GP, 12 G, 42 A, 54 PTS, 0.92 PPG, +23 (112/60 GF/GA)
Pronger: 51 GP, 8 G, 39 A, 47 PTS, 0.92 PPG, +21 (93/49 GF/GA)
Lidstrom: 82 GP, 15 G, 56 A, 71 PTS, 0.87 PPG, +9 (147/106 GF/GA)

If you find yourself wondering why Lidstrom's Norris voting share is so high in 2000-01, look no further than Scott Hannan, Tyson Nash, and Alexander Khavanov; they took out the competition - and two of those three were MacInnis' and Pronger's Blues teammates!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I know it is chic to bash Coffey at every opportunity around here but I think you mean if the Penguins had played any defense at all..

The 91-92 Pens finished 20th out of 22 teams in goals against (3.72). Coffey was traded in mid-February. In the playoffs their GAA was 2.92 and they won the Cup, sweeping the last 2 series.

In the 92-93 season they were 3rd out of 24 teams in GAA (3.12) and improved from an 87 point season to 119.

Is it chic to say that was a coincidence?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I know it is chic to bash Coffey at every opportunity around here but I think you mean if the Penguins had played any defense at all..

Not sure if it's chic or not but I saw a lot of Coffey when he played in Edmonton and he played like a Rover, not as a Dman.

Physically he did better than a guy like Housley but he really didn't even come close to punching his weight on the back end, defensively.

His defensive liabilities shine through with his plus/minus results after 86, despite being an incredible puck possession type of guy and not getting heavy lifting in the defensive shutdown roles either.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm positive that a larger part as to why that was his first Norris Trophy was the lack of a healthy 30-year-old Ray Bourque. Look at the 1990 and 1991 voting you just posted:

1990
38 out of 63 voters believe that Al MacInnis is better than every defenseman in the league who is not Ray Bourque, the unanimous winner. That's 60% of the voters who place him first in a Bourque-less world. You mention Housley (7 votes) and Iafrate (2 votes) as if their small sample of votes are proof that Al MacInnis was poor defensively. Those guys are 20-goal scorers playing on the East coast; they're going to get a little attention from somebody. We just had a big debate about 1998: Think of the minority 1st Place votes that Stevens, Pronger, and Murphy got despite having fewer points than Lidstrom. Is that indicative that Nicklas Lidstrom was a bad defensive player - in need of improvement to win a trophy? Because that's exactly what you're alleging about Al MacInnis.

Al was still suffering from his reputation as not being the best defensively as evidenced by only gaining any Norris attention in 87 before doing so again in 89

Ray Bourque 266 (52-2-0)
Mark Howe 137 (1-42-6)
Larry Murphy 31 (0-5-16)
Larry Robinson 12 (0-2-6)
Paul Coffey 10 (1-0-5)
Al MacInnis 6 (0-1-3)
Scott Stevens 6 (0-1-3)
Mario Marois 5 (0-1-2)
Rick Green 4 (0-0-4)
Ulf Samuelsson 3 (0-0-3)
Rod Langway 2 (0-0-2)
Mike Ramsey 1 (0-0-1)
James Patrick 1 (0-0-1)
Doug Wilson 1 (0-0-1)
Craig Hartsburg 1 (0-0-1)

In 88 Al is 2nd in Dman scoring behind Suter and doesn't get a single vote in Norris voting which went like this

Ray Bourque 245 (36-20-5)
Scott Stevens 124 (13-15-14)
Gary Suter 80 (8-9-13)
Brad McCrimmon 70 (4-13-11)
Kevin Lowe 24 (2-3-5)
Chris Chelios 10 (0-1-7)
Paul Coffey 5 (0-1-2)
James Patrick 5 (0-1-2)
Mark Howe 3 (0-0-3)
Denis Potvin 1 (0-0-1)

Part of the problem here is Al's defensive reputation and the plus minus of Suter (39) and McCrimmon (48) compared to Al (13).

No doubt Al wasn't as bad defensivley as he was in his earlier career but you would think that if he was as good as he would become that he would get at least 1 single vote don't you? I think the voters screwed up a bit here but that's another matter.

And to compare Al, who was extremely noticeable on the ice, after all teams game planned around his shot to a 98 Lidstrom who was playing a conservative low key style is absurd.

1991
66 voters this time, and 94% believe that Ray Bourque is either #1 or #2. So how does 83% of all of the voters believing that Al MacInnis occupies that other spot with Ray Bourque (including 41% saying that Al MacInnis himself is the #1 defenseman) prove that he lacks a defensive game at this point of his career? Because 11 voters (9 of which have MacInnis at least in third-place; MacInnis actually appeared on more ballots than Ray Bourque or anyone else) place high stock on Chelios' 60+ point debut in Chicago? Somehow a different voting system is going to show MacInnis in a worse light?

I think a different voting system might give a better picture of everyone in the process yes, but that's also assuming that Eastern voters were always giving western guys equal footing as well, which wasn't always the case.

The bar for a Norris Trophy season was lower in 1999 than it was in either 1990 or 1991, and MacInnis happened to have a really strong offensive season as well (just like he did in 2003). And give him his health in 2001 (54 points in 59 games), and he'd be looking at another 60-70 point season to get the attention of the voters. But it doesn't make him 1990 or 1991 Ray Bourque. That's why there was no Norris for prime MacInnis. He didn't need improvement; he needed easier competition. Not all Norris Trophies are equal. Don't you know that?

The bar may or may not have been lower, depending if you only look at the Norris winner or not, but it's very difficult to argue that the overall field of competition was any better in 90,91 than in 99.

My overall point was that Al was a more complete player in his later stages of his career than in his early days and even his peak years.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Not sure if it's chic or not but I saw a lot of Coffey when he played in Edmonton and he played like a Rover, not as a Dman.

That whole team played like a bunch of rovers in the regular season.

Physically he did better than a guy like Housley but he really didn't even come close to punching his weight on the back end, defensively.

No, the difference is that Coffey could play defense when he wanted, Housley was a lost cause. You watch Paul in the Canada Cups and the playoffs and it's a lot different.

His defensive liabilities shine through with his plus/minus results after 86, despite being an incredible puck possession type of guy and not getting heavy lifting in the defensive shutdown roles either.

Except of course when, as the info dug up earlier in this thread revealed, Bowman used him to go head to head with Sakic in '96 because he was the only one that could keep up to him, Lidstrom included.
Sakic was limited to 1G and 3A in 6 games at even strength in that series btw.

My overall point was that Al was a more complete player in his later stages of his career than in his early days and even his peak years.

He still wasn't a better player and neither the Al from '99 or the Al from '91 is better than Bourque or Chelios from '87-'96.
So your attempt to make Lidstrom's competition look better while making Bourque's look worse aint gonna fly.
That IS after all your underlying motivation.