New Back Check Episode: Detroit

[rnhaas]

Hi all,
We have posted another episode of our NHL/hockey history podcast. This one focuses on three players who played in Detroit, but only two of whom played for the Red Wings.

• Our eligible player is Pavel Datsyuk, the first player whose Hall of Fame case is really helped by his Corsi/Fenwick stats
• The we discuss Nick Lidstrom who, by Norris Trophy wins, is the second greatest D in NHL history
• Finally, we discuss Hall of Famer Frank Foyston, who briefly played for the Detroit Cougars near the end of his nearly 20-year pro career.

Listen here or on iTunes.

We hope you enjoy the episode and we look forward to your feedback.

Thanks again!

Click to read more...

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

The we discuss Nick Lidstrom who, by Norris Trophy wins, is the second greatest D in NHL history

LOL really? (Doug Harvey)

And Raymond Bourque was better than Lidstrom just for saying.

 

[rnhaas]

They both have 7.

One tie breaker could be that one player won 7 trophies in a 6 team league where he (theoretically) had five players competing with him for the award. The other had a lot more competition for his 7 trophies.

Another tie breaker could be that Harvey came in second a further two times, Lidstrom a further three times.

I don't believe Lidstrom was better than Harvey necessarily (I certainly couldn't prove it one way or the other) but I don't know that it's controversial or ridiculous to claim, based on Norris Trophies alone, that Lidstrom is the second greatest D in NHL history. (If you listen to the podcast, you'll see we're not saying he is the second best D ever.)

I'm inclined to agree with you about Bourque but I didn't see enough of his career to be sure.

 

[MXD]

Another interesting tiebraeker would be the amount of unmerited, undeserved Norris obtained in the context of a career achievement award.

Still, 2nd best by Norris was... quite clear. It doesn't mean he's the 2nd best. It just means he's the D-Men with the 2nd most Norris awards.

I should take a look at your podcast. I don't think Fenwick/Corsi do anything to Datsyuk's HHOF case because he's something of an obvious HHOF'er regardless, but that's just me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Another interesting tiebraeker would be the amount of unmerited, undeserved Norris obtained in the context of a career achievement award.

Still, 2nd best by Norris was... quite clear. It doesn't mean he's the 2nd best. It just means he's the D-Men with the 2nd most Norris awards.

I should take a look at your podcast. I don't think Fenwick/Corsi do anything to Datsyuk's HHOF case because he's something of an obvious HHOF'er regardless, but that's just me.

Yeah, there's too much reading out of the phone book on these I feel like...Corsi and Fenwick were out of vogue for people in the business about 10 years ago, out of vogue for fans about three or four...

That said, I don't find Datsyuk to be an "obvious" HHOFer...I don't mind if he goes and I expect him to go...but it's gonna be weird to have Dats in and Zetterberg out, right? Because Zetterberg was probably better defensively and wasn't really all that much worse offensively (didn't look at stats...just feeling)...

Datsyuk was flashier (his stickhandling moves, finishing moves in shootouts, and his NZ puckjackings) but Zetterberg was probably more reliable and consistent...and like I said, I think a bit better from a pure, overall defensive point of view.

Shot attempts (blocked or unblocked) from a bunch of people that grew up and played in the 1960's thru 1980's...yeah, not even on the radar haha

 

[MXD]

Yeah, there's too much reading out of the phone book on these I feel like...Corsi and Fenwick were out of vogue for people in the business about 10 years ago, out of vogue for fans about three or four...

That said, I don't find Datsyuk to be an "obvious" HHOFer...I don't mind if he goes and I expect him to go...but it's gonna be weird to have Dats in and Zetterberg out, right? Because Zetterberg was probably better defensively and wasn't really all that much worse offensively (didn't look at stats...just feeling)...

Datsyuk was flashier (his stickhandling moves, finishing moves in shootouts, and his NZ puckjackings) but Zetterberg was probably more reliable and consistent...and like I said, I think a bit better from a pure, overall defensive point of view.

Shot attempts (blocked or unblocked) from a bunch of people that grew up and played in the 1960's thru 1980's...yeah, not even on the radar haha

Obvious, in that he'd easily be the best forward (whose careeer was mostly spent in North American) not in the Hockey Hall of Fame, should he miss it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hmmm...I guess I didn't consider it from that perspective...and I'm not even certain I agree...though, the name that immediately popped into my head that wasn't Zetterberg was Kariya and now that's not a thing anymore...so, maybe...

 

[rnhaas]

Yeah, there's too much reading out of the phone book on these I feel like...Corsi and Fenwick were out of vogue for people in the business about 10 years ago, out of vogue for fans about three or four...

Well, we have the publicly available stats that we have, right?

 

[rnhaas]

Another interesting tiebraeker would be the amount of unmerited, undeserved Norris obtained in the context of a career achievement award.

Still, 2nd best by Norris was... quite clear. It doesn't mean he's the 2nd best. It just means he's the D-Men with the 2nd most Norris awards.

I should take a look at your podcast. I don't think Fenwick/Corsi do anything to Datsyuk's HHOF case because he's something of an obvious HHOF'er regardless, but that's just me.

We'd appreciate the listen.

I think both Lidstrom's 2011 Norris in particular is super sketchy, and I think you could make arguments he didn't deserve it in 2001, 2002, and 2006. (We don't get into those ones in the podcast, though.)

With our limited information, I think you could make cases that Harvey didn't deserve all of his either, though it's much harder.

 

[MXD]

We'd appreciate the listen.

I think both Lidstrom's 2011 Norris in particular is super sketchy, and I think you could make arguments he didn't deserve it in 2001, 2002, and 2006. (We don't get into those ones in the podcast, though.)

With our limited information, I think you could make cases that Harvey didn't deserve all of his either, though it's much harder.

Only implied 2011 was BS. None of the others were... to me, at least.

 

[danincanada]

Another interesting tiebraeker would be the amount of unmerited, undeserved Norris obtained in the context of a career achievement award.

Still, 2nd best by Norris was... quite clear. It doesn't mean he's the 2nd best. It just means he's the D-Men with the 2nd most Norris awards.

Wouldn't he and Harvey still be tied then? Harvey was -9 for his last Norris and finished 7th in scoring among defenseman. At face value is seems even less deserving than Lidstrom's last Norris where he was -2 and finished 2nd in scoring. Talbot was +30 and had 17 more points than Harvey so it should be questioned.

Lidstrom could have easily won it in '98 and '09 and Harvey could have in '62-63, but for some reason he wasn't even considered by voters that season.

With regards to the podcast, I tried to listen yesterday but for me it felt like someone rambling off stats for the first few minutes. I'd rather listen to people actually discuss players and their careers. Maybe I didn't listen long enough... but that's my constructive criticism of what I did hear.

 

[DannyGallivan]

The we discuss Nick Lidstrom who, by Norris Trophy wins, is the second greatest D in NHL history

 

[sr edler]

Nice bike honk. First I thought it was a flash light.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, we have the publicly available stats that we have, right?

Yes. They are publicly available because they are no longer useful at the proprietary level...long line of this: individual shots (very early on), ice time (1930's), plus/minus (1950s and 60s), save/efficiency% (1950s-1970s), corsi (late 90s-2000s), etc.

It's new to the fans, but it doesn't make it valuable. It was classic shiny new toy syndrome...

 

[rnhaas]

With regards to the podcast, I tried to listen yesterday but for me it felt like someone rambling off stats for the first few minutes. I'd rather listen to people actually discuss players and their careers. Maybe I didn't listen long enough... but that's my constructive criticism of what I did hear.

Thanks. We do actually talk about the players after the stats. I'm not sure how else to introduce the stats. It feels like we can't talk about them afterwards. We could break them up, I guess.

But we want a baseline so everyone knows where we're at. A lot of stuff on the internet accidentally or deliberately misrepresents reality and that's the last thing we want to do. We have opinions, sure, but there is a historical record which we want to acknowledge as much as we can.

 

[rnhaas]

Yes. They are publicly available because they are no longer useful at the proprietary level...long line of this: individual shots (very early on), ice time (1930's), plus/minus (1950s and 60s), save/efficiency% (1950s-1970s), corsi (late 90s-2000s), etc.

It's new to the fans, but it doesn't make it valuable. It was classic shiny new toy syndrome...

I don't work for an NHL franchise, obviously. Nor does my cohost. What exactly are we supposed to do with players who played before hockey analytics became a public thing? Just ignore the information we do have?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Personally, and talking to some of the boys here, they agree...the stat reading is too much...you don't hear any of them after about five or seven seconds...it's like someone reading a tax return to you haha you just kind of glaze over...

We'd be much more interested if there were more legit, contemporary homework done (newspaper articles from the time, some stories, some video research, etc.) to be honest...too many counting stats is the cause of a lot of misrepresentation on places that are on the internet (that aren't this board)...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't work for an NHL franchise, obviously. Nor does my cohost. What exactly are we supposed to do with players who played before hockey analytics became a public thing? Just ignore the information we do have?

If that information is corsi, then yeah, it's not very valuable. It's fine as a minor piece as part of a larger package, but considering it got headliner status in the OP, I suspect it's already being overused for what its actual value is...

Just my opinion...I'm just some idiot, but one that is fortunate enough to have some work in the sport, so I'm just providing what the feeling is in around the game on what you're headlining...if you're dealing with guys into history and you're dealing with guys that really want to take a deeper look at the game, I wouldn't go for Fenwick...that's all I'm sayin'...no disrespect intended...

 

[rnhaas]

Personally, and talking to some of the boys here, they agree...the stat reading is too much...you don't hear any of them after about five or seven seconds...it's like someone reading a tax return to you haha you just kind of glaze over...

We'd be much more interested if there were more legit, contemporary homework done (newspaper articles from the time, some stories, some video research, etc.) to be honest...too many counting stats is the cause of a lot of misrepresentation on places that are on the internet (that aren't this board)...

Thanks! Greatly appreciated. We'll see what we can do.

Honestly, I think this is the clearest feedback we've yet received from anyone, so I really do mean that it's greatly appreciated.

PS We're always interested in guests, if that's something you would be interested in. For example, we were thinking of doing a series of "What we got wrong" episodes if we ever get enough interest.

 

[rnhaas]

If that information is corsi, then yeah, it's not very valuable. It's fine as a minor piece as part of a larger package, but considering it got headliner status in the OP, I suspect it's already being overused for what its actual value is...

Just my opinion...I'm just some idiot, but one that is fortunate enough to have some work in the sport, so I'm just providing what the feeling is in around the game on what you're headlining...if you're dealing with guys into history and you're dealing with guys that really want to take a deeper look at the game, I wouldn't go for Fenwick...that's all I'm sayin'...no disrespect intended...

Fair enough.

We get that possession is just an approximation. We've tried to mention it in the shows, but maybe not enough.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Thanks! Greatly appreciated. We'll see what we can do.

Honestly, I think this is the clearest feedback we've yet received from anyone, so I really do mean that it's greatly appreciated.

PS We're always interested in guests, if that's something you would be interested in. For example, we were thinking of doing a series of "What we got wrong" episodes if we ever get enough interest.

I'll keep it mind certainly. I'm not sure if I'm knowledgeable enough about a particular area of history to be of any good use haha but I'll think about it for sure...I'm more of a futures guy at this point in my life, there's a bunch of people here more well versed in history than me...

 

[Michael Farkas]

If you're accepting of feedback, the Foyston part takes a very anti-historical slant for no obvious reason...which is not something we would expect from something called "The Hockey History Podcast"...where players that are older are just shooed off to the corner of the HHOF with fishing tales and lore...

Again, I go back to my previous statement about just reciting stats in place of the real contemporary work...I can't make that sound nicer in text, but I don't mean it to be jerk-ish. But putting Foyston's picture in the men's room in the HOF is quite a slap in the face...

Read this for starters...
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/2016-atd-bio-thread.2018383/page-3#post-114336321
and/or this: https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/atd-2014-the-bios-thread.1587243/page-3#post-80071611


Even same thing for Harvey...there's plenty of game footage out there of him. And he was an absolute wagon of a player...despite crap partners...

 

[rnhaas]

Thanks for the links.

 

[Sentinel]

Yeah, there's too much reading out of the phone book on these I feel like...Corsi and Fenwick were out of vogue for people in the business about 10 years ago, out of vogue for fans about three or four...

That said, I don't find Datsyuk to be an "obvious" HHOFer...I don't mind if he goes and I expect him to go...but it's gonna be weird to have Dats in and Zetterberg out, right? Because Zetterberg was probably better defensively and wasn't really all that much worse offensively (didn't look at stats...just feeling)...

Datsyuk was flashier (his stickhandling moves, finishing moves in shootouts, and his NZ puckjackings) but Zetterberg was probably more reliable and consistent...and like I said, I think a bit better from a pure, overall defensive point of view.

Dude, they are practically sure shot first ballot HOFers and likely retired numbers as well. And that sure as hell ain't got nun to do with Corsi.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Datsyuk probably because he was more "compelling" than his game play always warranted...Zetterberg I could see not being invited to the party right away...

Nothing has to do with Corsi, of course