Nick Lidstrom's place in history

[Hardyvan123]

Your wish is my command: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1031377&page=17

Yes I recall that post, although it was lost in my mind along with the 5000 or so other posts about Lidstrom..lol

Just curious how would you vote the top 3 guys for Calder that year?

I have it Lidstrom, Bure, Amonte.

 

[hcdt]

Btw does coming up a new style to play hockey make you any better player?


I mean Harvey and Lidstrom plays a bit same way and arent we discussing who is better at that play style and as an defender in general?

We are not talking about who has invented more the game or even who have had more impact to the game?

Atleast im talking about who is BETTER defender.

I think even trophy count has more to do with who was/is better player

Bull, I provided charts for both adjusted and raw totals not too long ago and Bourque is the clear winner on both.



I am most definitely counting playoff's. If I wasn't, then Lidstrom wouldn't be any where near #4 all-time.
Accounting for team strength, who they actually had to face in the playoffs and then (as was presented recently) an in depth review of their individual performances in the PO's, Lidstrom gains very little if anything at all on Bourque.



If that were true, I would be sitting here arguing Green and Coffey over Lidstrom. The fact that Bourque was very, very strong defensively as finishing high on many a coaches poll as the best defensive D-man multiple times attests to.
Doing that WHILE producing offense at a higher level than Lidstrom ever did with a hell of a lot less talent around him to help.
And lets just forget that Bourque has 4-7 more seasons of elite play over Lidstrom.




And that explanation is unacceptable to you?
That he revolutionized the way D-men play.
A way that is still employed at the earliest levels of hockey around the entire world over 60 years later.
A way that Lidstrom himself plays like a mirror.

Apparently the gravity of that is lost on you.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

And that explanation is unacceptable to you?
That he revolutionized the way D-men play.
A way that is still employed at the earliest levels of hockey around the entire world over 60 years later.
A way that Lidstrom himself plays like a mirror.

Apparently the gravity of that is lost on you.

Did he? When reading up on how Eddie Shore played as a veteran player, it sounded very similar to Harvey style (with the addition of Shore's temper.)

 

[Rhiessan71]

Btw does coming up a new style to play hockey make you any better player?


I mean Harvey and Lidstrom plays a bit same way and arent we discussing who is better at that play style and as an defender in general?

We are not talking about who has invented more the game or even who have had more impact to the game?

Atleast im talking about who is BETTER defender.

I think even trophy count has more to do with who was/is better player

So you're saying that winning a Norris or a Cup is a greater accomplishment than changing and leaving your footprint on the actual game itself? A footprint that is still visable at even the lowest levels of hockey more than 60 years later....oooookkkkk.

And trophy counting again...really? You realise that Harvey is tied with Lidstrom in Norris count despite the fact that the trophy didn't even exist for the first 7 years of his career?
Bad bad argument in this case my friend.

Did he? When reading up on how Eddie Shore played as a veteran player, it sounded very similar to Harvey style (with the addition of Shore's temper.)

I don't like speaking too much on Shore, it's so tough with him (especially when looking at the rules he played under) but Harvey controlled the game like no one else other than Orr himself.

D-men used to simply attack opposing players coming in.
Harvey used to let them come to him and box them out, let them run out of runway so to speak. Sounds so simple because that is just the way it is today but it was not so simple back then.
It was revolutionary, it changed how the game was played, how defense was viewed and more importantly, it allowed for the institution of actual systems that consisted of more than just man on man.

 

[tarheelhockey]

D-men used to simply attack opposing players coming in.
Harvey used to let them come to him and box them out, let them run out of runway so to speak. Sounds so simple because that is just the way it is today but it was not so simple back then.
It was revolutionary, it changed how the game was played, how defense was viewed and more importantly, it allowed for the institution of actual systems that consisted of more than just man on man.

Does anyone know whether and, if applicable, how much Harvey was influenced by his coaches, teammates, opponents, etc in redefining the position? I know in Shore's case one can identify influencers (Art Ross, for example) but I admit I just don't know as much about Harvey's development.

It may be the case that he actually changed the game singlehandedly as a sort of genius, but I'd like to verify that claim if possible.

 

[hcdt]

You can put it that way as well.

The point is that if you change the game and its followed in the future it does inprove your historical relevance and importance to the sport but it does not make you a BETTER player.

Someone who would never have played on high level this game could still have caused evolution to the sport and it woudnt make him a better player but a more important person to the sport.

I said that even trophy counting is more important than the "changing the game" but i never said who wins trophy counting race There is other reasons why i consider both Bourque and Lidstrom above Harvey. Bourque would lose this badly if that would be my criteria..

However from the changing the game aspect when you do it one usually does it to the "correct" direction and is master in it so the player does get the "plus sides" from this great job to the "better player competition" as well but that must be evaluated strickly on how good the player is and forget the "60 years later imapct on junior ice hockey part". That belongs the the discussion of "great icehockey personalities of all times".

So you're saying that winning a Norris or a Cup is a greater accomplishment than changing and leaving your footprint on the actual game itself? A footprint that is still visable at even the lowest levels of hockey more than 60 years later....oooookkkkk.

And trophy counting again...really? You realise that Harvey is tied with Lidstrom in Norris count despite the fact that the trophy didn't even exist for the first 7 years of his career?
Bad bad argument in this case my friend.



I don't like speaking too much on Shore, it's so tough with him (especially when looking at the rules he played under) but Harvey controlled the game like no one else other than Orr himself.

D-men used to simply attack opposing players coming in.
Harvey used to let them come to him and box them out, let them run out of runway so to speak. Sounds so simple because that is just the way it is today but it was not so simple back then.
It was revolutionary, it changed how the game was played, how defense was viewed and more importantly, it allowed for the institution of actual systems that consisted of more than just man on man.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Alternative

but that's not really a representation of the 300th-399th-best canadian players, is it?



right. so the NHL didn't really get easier or harder to crack.



You think Canadian hockey regressed in a 14-year period? we're talking about replacement level, what it takes to just get there. You can't tell me that 1988 4th liners were as good as the ones in 2002. not even close.




I'm not personally disagreeing with your overall point. I was only replying to your talent pool vs. league size point.

feel free to provide an alternative representation.

The context is defensemen - Lidstrom`s place in history. As such the slots between 300-399 in scoring offer a window to observe the level of talent that defensemen would have had to defend against from the group of available Canadiens.

 

[seventieslord]

feel free to provide an alternative representation.

The context is defensemen - Lidstrom`s place in history. As such the slots between 300-399 in scoring offer a window to observe the level of talent that defensemen would have had to defend against from the group of available Canadiens.

not really. you and I were talking about replacement level players (an argument of talent pool vs. league size) and though we disagreed on that, it doesn't really matter. that's more about what it takes to get to the NHL, but those aren't the players that really had anything to do with Lidstrom's dominance. The person who brought it up didn't really need to go in that direction in the first place because it's irrelevant. It's the top line players that Lidstrom and other top defensemen faced on a nightly basis, that really matter. And, the top defensemen who provided competition for awards. Just because it takes more now to get into the NHL than it did 25 years ago (i.e. the 100th-best defenseman now is better than the 100th then), does NOT mean that the 5th or 10th now are better than the 5th or 10th then, or that winning the Norris now automatically is worth more than doing the same back then. BIG difference. In a massive sample size like the overall talent pool you won't see a lull like that, but at the very top echelon you will see ebbs and flows over time. Lidstrom's period of peak dominance is definitely one of them, and it's not a good one.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You can put it that way as well.

The point is that if you change the game and its followed in the future it does inprove your historical relevance and importance to the sport but it does not make you a BETTER player.

Someone who would never have played on high level this game could still have caused evolution to the sport and it woudnt make him a better player but a more important person to the sport.

I said that even trophy counting is more important than the "changing the game" but i never said who wins trophy counting race There is other reasons why i consider both Bourque and Lidstrom above Harvey. Bourque would lose this badly if that would be my criteria..

However from the changing the game aspect when you do it one usually does it to the "correct" direction and is master in it so the player does get the "plus sides" from this great job to the "better player competition" as well but that must be evaluated strickly on how good the player is and forget the "60 years later imapct on junior ice hockey part". That belongs the the discussion of "great icehockey personalities of all times".

So by that criteria, we should just chalk up a guy like Albert Einstein simply as a "personality" then?
I mean the people today that have advanced his original theories further than he did should quite obviously be valued higher than him right?
They have better equipment, resources and more extensive training than Einstein did, therefore they must be better and smarter right?

 

[tarheelhockey]

So by that criteria, we should just chalk up a guy like Albert Einstein simply as a "personality" then?
I mean the people today that have advanced his original theories further than he did should quite obviously be valued higher than him right?
They have better equipment, resources and more extensive training than Einstein did, therefore they must be better and smarter right?

Give me a break, Einstein lived in an era where he could be a patent clerk and do math on the side. Elite mathematicians today train year-round from the time they're kids!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

not really. you and I were talking about replacement level players (an argument of talent pool vs. league size) and though we disagreed on that, it doesn't really matter. that's more about what it takes to get to the NHL, but those aren't the players that really had anything to do with Lidstrom's dominance. The person who brought it up didn't really need to go in that direction in the first place because it's irrelevant. It's the top line players that Lidstrom and other top defensemen faced on a nightly basis, that really matter. And, the top defensemen who provided competition for awards. Just because it takes more now to get into the NHL than it did 25 years ago (i.e. the 100th-best defenseman now is better than the 100th then), does NOT mean that the 5th or 10th now are better than the 5th or 10th then, or that winning the Norris now automatically is worth more than doing the same back then. BIG difference. In a massive sample size like the overall talent pool you won't see a lull like that, but at the very top echelon you will see ebbs and flows over time. Lidstrom's period of peak dominance is definitely one of them, and it's not a good one.

Reconcile the two bolded comments.

Basic issue as I see it is that regardless of the era - represented by 1988 or 2002 Nicklas Lidstrom or Ray Bourque got to play against the contemporary 300-399 or 301-400 best Canadian hockey player in the NHL every game that they played.

On the other hand did Doug Harvey ever play against the 300-399 best Canadian hockey player at the NHL level? Hardly ever since such players were easily three leagues down the chain exceptions would be an emergency goalie. Orr did not until 1972-73 and even those were more skilled.

Conversely Lidstrom faces Crosby(when healthy) or Stamkos or the Sedins how many times a season or Chara or other Norris contenders how many times a season? Yet A Harvey or an Orr would face the elite talent - or Norris contenders on a nightly basis - with some exceptions in Orr`s era.

 

[seventieslord]

Reconcile the two bolded comments.

Basic issue as I see it is that regardless of the era - represented by 1988 or 2002 Nicklas Lidstrom or Ray Bourque got to play against the contemporary 300-399 or 301-400 best Canadian hockey player in the NHL every game that they played.

On the other hand did Doug Harvey ever play against the 300-399 best Canadian hockey player at the NHL level? Hardly ever since such players were easily three leagues down the chain exceptions would be an emergency goalie. Orr did not until 1972-73 and even those were more skilled.

Conversely Lidstrom faces Crosby(when healthy) or Stamkos or the Sedins how many times a season or Chara or other Norris contenders how many times a season? Yet A Harvey or an Orr would face the elite talent - or Norris contenders on a nightly basis - with some exceptions in Orr`s era.

You've tried this 100 times by now and no one buys it.

Harvey faced the top superstars as often as Gadsby, Kelly, etc. (actually you could say he faced them less because a disproportionate number of them were on his team)

Bourque faced the top superstars as often as Potvin, Park, etc.

Lidstrom faced the top superstars as often as Chara, Blake, etc.

I am on your side re: Harvey over Lidstrom 100%, but it's also 100% irrelevant that Lidstrom didn't face the top superstars as often as Harvey did. Absolutely meaningless.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Meaningless

not really. you and I were talking about replacement level players (an argument of talent pool vs. league size) and though we disagreed on that, it doesn't really matter. that's more about what it takes to get to the NHL, but those aren't the players that really had anything to do with Lidstrom's dominance. The person who brought it up didn't really need to go in that direction in the first place because it's irrelevant. It's the top line players that Lidstrom and other top defensemen faced on a nightly basis, that really matter. And, the top defensemen who provided competition for awards. Just because it takes more now to get into the NHL than it did 25 years ago (i.e. the 100th-best defenseman now is better than the 100th then), does NOT mean that the 5th or 10th now are better than the 5th or 10th then, or that winning the Norris now automatically is worth more than doing the same back then. BIG difference. In a massive sample size like the overall talent pool you won't see a lull like that, but at the very top echelon you will see ebbs and flows over time. Lidstrom's period of peak dominance is definitely one of them, and it's not a good one.

You've tried this 100 times by now and no one buys it.

Harvey faced the top superstars as often as Gadsby, Kelly, etc. (actually you could say he faced them less because a disproportionate number of them were on his team)

Bourque faced the top superstars as often as Potvin, Park, etc.

Lidstrom faced the top superstars as often as Chara, Blake, etc.

I am on your side re: Harvey over Lidstrom 100%, but it's also 100% irrelevant that Lidstrom didn't face the top superstars as often as Harvey did. Absolutely meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Which basically is another way of saying that Lidstrom, Chara, Blake, etc are from a shallower talent pool than Harvey and his contemporaries or Orr, Bourque and their contemporaries.

Players are defined by the competition they face and their ability to adapt from shift to shift, game to game against the elite. Reduce the numebr of confrontations and the test is weakened.

 

[hcdt]

This has nothing to do with that...


Its like i just put the "developement of the game" to different discussion when just talking about the best players.

Harvey might be more important to history of the game than Lidstrom but Lidstrom is a better player. To this discussion the developement part dosent have nothing to do.

I dont know a good comparsion... but something like.. Maybe Einstain did develope the theory but maybe someone else is better at calculating it over and over and over and confirming it and confirming it etc... Einstain was anyway a very excentric person who barely could do own landary

I know allready your point of view how you view the game in old times and new times and as you seem to appreciate it quite to same level thru different times which is of course an opinion you are entitled to and has some upsides even.

Do you know understand what i mean atleast? That its quite irrelevant to me as a general manager of Detroit Redwings (i hope i would be ) if my player is developing the game. For me the only relevant part is how much of that development and other dominating or otherwise favorable attributes comes to the performance of any particular defenceman.

Maybe one could even say that the good development Harvey did is double counted to his favor as you count the actual development and its impact to the new generations and then we also count the huge impact all this development had to increase his value as a player and his overall ability to be a really good defenceman.

So by that criteria, we should just chalk up a guy like Albert Einstein simply as a "personality" then?
I mean the people today that have advanced his original theories further than he did should quite obviously be valued higher than him right?
They have better equipment, resources and more extensive training than Einstein did, therefore they must be better and smarter right?

 

[Epsilon]

You've tried this 100 times by now and no one buys it.

Harvey faced the top superstars as often as Gadsby, Kelly, etc. (actually you could say he faced them less because a disproportionate number of them were on his team)

Bourque faced the top superstars as often as Potvin, Park, etc.

Lidstrom faced the top superstars as often as Chara, Blake, etc.

I am on your side re: Harvey over Lidstrom 100%, but it's also 100% irrelevant that Lidstrom didn't face the top superstars as often as Harvey did. Absolutely meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Which basically is another way of saying that Lidstrom, Chara, Blake, etc are from a shallower talent pool than Harvey and his contemporaries or Orr, Bourque and their contemporaries.

Players are defined by the competition they face and their ability to adapt from shift to shift, game to game against the elite. Reduce the numebr of confrontations and the test is weakened.

Those players also had correspondingly stronger teammates to support them than players do now, so it makes the entire line of reasoning vacuous.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Man

Basic issue is the ability to repeatidly play with and against the elite

Some can shine when there is no competition on their team to be "The Man", others when the opposition has no player of "The Man" quality look great.

 

[seventieslord]

Which basically is another way of saying that Lidstrom, Chara, Blake, etc are from a shallower talent pool than Harvey and his contemporaries or Orr, Bourque and their contemporaries..

no, absolutely not. It's another way of saying that he played in a league with more teams, and nothing more.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Did he? When reading up on how Eddie Shore played as a veteran player, it sounded very similar to Harvey style (with the addition of Shore's temper.)

Or Hod Stuart as well.

being 1st at something is extremely overrated by some posters on this board, R71 that would be you.

 

[Hardyvan123]

At the risk of feeling like plusminus here didn't anyone look at my numbers for non Canadians re Bourque and Lidstrom years 85 and 96)or is it conveniently overlooked as it doesn't help some of the arguments here?

 

[tarheelhockey]

At the risk of feeling like plusminus here didn't anyone look at my numbers for non Canadians re Bourque and Lidstrom years 85 and 96)or is it conveniently overlooked as it doesn't help some of the arguments here?

In 1996, 61 former Soviets played in the NHL.
Of those 61, we can scratch off 19 who played less than half the season.

Pretty sure this pattern would apply to any given season. Before we use numbers like these, I'd like to see them scrubbed of Alexander Vasilievski's 4-game career.

 

[MadLuke]

So by that criteria, we should just chalk up a guy like Albert Einstein simply as a "personality" then?
I mean the people today that have advanced his original theories further than he did should quite obviously be valued higher than him right?
They have better equipment, resources and more extensive training than Einstein did, therefore they must be better and smarter right?

I think that the best exemple for what your trying to say is chest player.

Some normal top 100 modern chess player could beat all the 1800's, 1900's to a certain year's with teleportation, because of modern knowledge and far superior opening / late game strategy.

But give Fisher or Capablanca 2-3 year's of modern training and they would probably be in the top 5 worldwide fast enough and challenge for the first place.

 

[hcdt]

I understand that part and we have thoroughtly discussed that with RH71 and agreed to disagree. Not that the old coudnt be as good as the new one but the likelihood is just lower with less professional talent level in AVRAGE. And i dont want to get to this discussion again.

I wanted to just point out to Rhiessan71 that he is probably double crediting Harvey from being first.. by crediting from the change and being first and also crediting from the play that was created from being the first and excelled in this "modern way to play". Only the latter part should be taken into account when discussing best PLAYER... not historically most important hockey persons... In the latter discussion atleast with the current perspective and the perspective of midrange future i think Harvey wins against both Lidstrom and Bourque...

I think that the best exemple for what your trying to say is chest player.

Some normal top 100 modern chess player could beat all the 1800's, 1900's to a certain year's with teleportation, because of modern knowledge and far superior opening / late game strategy.

But give Fisher or Capablanca 2-3 year's of modern training and they would probably be in the top 5 worldwide fast enough and challenge for the first place.

 

[hcdt]

Do you really mean what you say or was that just some word twisting?

I mean are you truly thinking that the ""Which basically is another way of saying that Lidstrom, Chara, Blake, etc are from a shallower talent pool than Harvey"" is your opinion?

I think this is even more bolder than what Rhiessan says and Tarheelhockey has even constructive attitude to this..........

If you take few names which are famous who played against Harvey and that being your only evidence i dont know how to counter it anymore... we just think very differently

Do you really say that Harvey had a deeper talentpool and stiffer general competition ? You really underestimate the players today.... They are not that bad.... not even close. But im quite sure in future you will appreciate the 00s and 10s hockey as well..

You've tried this 100 times by now and no one buys it.

Harvey faced the top superstars as often as Gadsby, Kelly, etc. (actually you could say he faced them less because a disproportionate number of them were on his team)

Bourque faced the top superstars as often as Potvin, Park, etc.

Lidstrom faced the top superstars as often as Chara, Blake, etc.

I am on your side re: Harvey over Lidstrom 100%, but it's also 100% irrelevant that Lidstrom didn't face the top superstars as often as Harvey did. Absolutely meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Which basically is another way of saying that Lidstrom, Chara, Blake, etc are from a shallower talent pool than Harvey and his contemporaries or Orr, Bourque and their contemporaries.

Players are defined by the competition they face and their ability to adapt from shift to shift, game to game against the elite. Reduce the numebr of confrontations and the test is weakened.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In 1996, 61 former Soviets played in the NHL.
Of those 61, we can scratch off 19 who played less than half the season.

Pretty sure this pattern would apply to any given season. Before we use numbers like these, I'd like to see them scrubbed of Alexander Vasilievski's 4-game career.

The increase, in both numbers and quality of US players in 96 is quite high as well, it's not just about the Russians.

I don't think we can make a direct numerical formula or anything but it really indicates the differences in even a 10 year period.

 

[Hardyvan123]

feel free to provide an alternative representation.

The context is defensemen - Lidstrom`s place in history. As such the slots between 300-399 in scoring offer a window to observe the level of talent that defensemen would have had to defend against from the group of available Canadiens.

Wouldn't it be more fair to compare the guys playing more minutes rather than the role players?

In 96 and 11 there were around 300 Canadian born players who played in more than 40 games in the NHL in those seasons so to focus on the 300-399 players is either foolish or misleading.