The 'Competition' Argument

[Sorge Georos]

Just a bit curious here...

Competition is a valid factor to bring when discussing awards such as Norris, Hart, etc. (Although I'm not a fan of judging a player based on an award that seems to be ridiculed nearly every year)

However, it has now seemed to have evolved into evidence that Player A is better than Player B.

For instance if Niklas Lidstrom were compared to a random top defenseman one may say, "Niklas Lidstrom had weaker competition, therefore he's overrated." This is a concept that has been discussed to death.

But how does so called "weaker competition" prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Lidstrom isn't as good as the other defenseman? How do other players being bad detract from Lidstrom? On the opposite side, how does having supposedly better competition make a player automatically better than his future counterpart?

If Bobby Orr of 1970 was transported to Lidstrom's era, does playing against the likes of Stevens, Chara, Niedermayer, etc. somehow make him a lesser player?

The problem with the competition argument is that it leads to a conclusion that a top defenseman of the 1970s was automatically better than a top defenseman of the 1990s + 2000s simply by being older.

Personally, I prefer judging players on their individual play and on factors which they can control.

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

I agree. Competition doesn't have any impact on how good a player is or was. It does impact their resume though. For example, I think that most would agree that Brad Park's various second place Norris finishes to Bobby Orr are as good as any of Lidstrom's Norris trophies, even though he has no hardware to show for it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't think it affects how good a certain player is at all.

It only gives them a greater or lesser share of the hardware and the problem is that a lot of weight is given to that when comparing players.

So the competition has to be taken into context whenever we are comparing players trophies, top 10 finishes etc. because although it doesn't directly affect how good a particular player actually was.. it provides the context for comparing two players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Competition Factor

An overlooked element in the competition factor is the head to head games between the teams involving the two players. In the O6 era you could look at how two elite defensemen performed against each other over 14 games during the regular season when discussing the Norris. This eventually dropped down to 6-8 games after the various expansions. Today you have the possibility of perhaps one head to head game featuring Norris contenders.

When you have very limited head to head competition then all the secondary comparisons enter the discussion.

 

[BostonAJ]

It works the other way, too. I've seen fans around here that when evaluating forwards from the 80s remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the equation, as it's just an unfair comparison (somebody often refers to those two as "the freaks", which I think sums it up nicely). Brad Park never won a Norris, but he was unfortunate enough to play in the shadows of Bobby Orr and Denis Potvin. Many fans realize this and still rank him as an all-time great.

Lidstrom's career overlaps with the "golden era" defensemen (Chelios, Bourque, Coffey, Leetch, MacInnis, etc.). Those guys in their late 30s compared well with an early-mid twenties Lidstrom, and that's to be remembered when looking at Lids' Norris streak. He's been the only one of his kind for awhile now. Pronger, Niedermayer, and Chara are great defensemen, but they're just not in his league.

 

[DRWCountryClub]

What I don't understand about the Lidstrom-competition thing is that he is head and shoulders above no doubt, shoe-in, First Ballot HoFers in Pronger and Neidermayer, yet people say his competition wasn't that good.

So he won six Norris Trophies and missed out on one to possibly make it seven(lock out during his peak) and was a Finalist I believe 4 other times, and 4th this year in Norris voting(I think). What I'm trying to say is that he has been ridiculously dominant for over 10 seasons, at least for Norris voting.

He's also averaged at least a Stanley Cup Finals appearance ever third year, winning four, plus a Conn Smythe.

I tried to look for a bit to find stats for scoring prior to 97 but couldn't find a good list of dmen, but since the 97/98 season, Lidstrom's place in dmen scoring are:1,2,1,2,2,3,22(yikes),1,5,1,3,9...

so over 12 seasons, was top three in scoring 9 times, top 10 11 times, and had that one aberration season offensively playing with Schneider.

I think this gets overlooked, because he has played against some amazing offensive dmen over that time frame, most notably Gonchar, Neidermayer, Leetch, Zubov, Schneider, Boyle, Markov... To a lesser extent, Kaberle, Campbell, Pronger...

All considered great puck movers(Pronger is the exception), with great offensive abilities, who Nick consistently outscored.

Anyway, I'm derailing the thread a bit, but I see this argument brought up so much against Lidstrom, and it bugs the **** out of me.

Goodnight.

 

[jkrx]

The competition arguement is used because no one likes to admit that both they and the league took aproximently 6 years to figure out how good he really were. Not saying Lidström wouldve won the Norris over the guys that won those years but he was highly underrated. He also plays the game pretty anonymously and do things the casual fans don't really notice when their eyes are hunting for that big flashy move or a thundering body check.

 

[JackSlater]

As you said, Lidstrom's chief competition in the last decade was Niedermayer and Pronger. In the 90s, the competition for the Norris inculded guys like Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, MacInnis, Coffey and Leetch. Most people would probably say that each of those defencemen is better than Pronger and Niedermayer. I would say that the recent crop of top end defencemen is the weakest group since the 60s. It's not unreasonable to expect that had Lidstrom's prime come in the 90s or 80s he would have won maybe 3-4 Norris trophies instead of 6. If his prime had come in the 70s he very well may not have won any Norris trophies. None of this diminishes Lidstrom as a player, it just means that his positional dominance may not be as impressive as players with similar or possibly even fewer accolades.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

What I don't understand about the Lidstrom-competition thing is that he is head and shoulders above no doubt, shoe-in, First Ballot HoFers in Pronger and Neidermayer, yet people say his competition wasn't that good.

I think you're overstating Niedermayer and Pronger here. The former was not really considered an elite level defenseman until about 2003. The latter suffered from injury and consistency issues in the early part of the decade. Ancient versions of MacInnis, Chelios, and Stevens were pretty much Lidstrom's top competition for his early Norris wins.

Most people in here usually consider Lidstrom in the 5-7 range for all-time defensemen anyway, ahead of any of the names I've listed here. The competition argument only comes out when people resort to simple trophy counting, ignoring the fact that every award needs to be examined in proper context.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Couple of things here Dmen never directly compete against each other in games they are playing primarily against the other teams forwards. Lidstrom never really competed directly against Pronger or Nieds or Chara even in the games against them

Also some past Dmen are given way too much credit for being better than they actually were due to the disparity in the level of talent in the league overall. Brad Park is the best example ere, while he was a very good Dman he was never in the same class as Lidstrom.

Too many people here dismiss Lidstrom's greatness because he didn't dominate statistically like others in the past like Orr. stats only tell part of the story for Lidstrom as IMO he is one of the best 3 Dmen of all time.

The competition we should really be talking about is the overall level of league play and the conditions , primarily in the NHL, that elite players played in.

 

[seventieslord]

Too many people here dismiss Lidstrom's greatness because he didn't dominate statistically like others in the past like Orr.

Depends what stats you look at. Lidstrom's goals against compared to the quality of his competition, is incredible. And his overall even strength impact on his team's goal differential has been immense.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I was referring to his counting stats as he has never had a wow season like Orr, Potvin or Coffey.

Personally I have Lidstrom in my top 3 Dmen of all time and most people here don't have him in their top 5.

 

[canucks4ever]

As you said, Lidstrom's chief competition in the last decade was Niedermayer and Pronger. In the 90s, the competition for the Norris inculded guys like Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, MacInnis, Coffey and Leetch. Most people would probably say that each of those defencemen is better than Pronger and Niedermayer. I would say that the recent crop of top end defencemen is the weakest group since the 60s. It's not unreasonable to expect that had Lidstrom's prime come in the 90s or 80s he would have won maybe 3-4 Norris trophies instead of 6. If his prime had come in the 70s he very well may not have won any Norris trophies. None of this diminishes Lidstrom as a player, it just means that his positional dominance may not be as impressive as players with similar or possibly even fewer accolades.

You can certainly argue pronger is better than leetch. If I was a coach, I would take pronger.

 

[seventieslord]

I was referring to his counting stats as he has never had a wow season like Orr, Potvin or Coffey.

Personally I have Lidstrom in my top 3 Dmen of all time and most people here don't have him in their top 5.

I don't even want to ask what your case is for having him above Shore or Harvey or Bourque...

 

[JackSlater]

You can certainly argue pronger is better than leetch. If I was a coach, I would take pronger.

I can't say I disagree. Leetch is definitely better than Niedermayer though, so that's why I included him in the category of players clearly superior to Lidstrom's competition.

 

[DRWCountryClub]

What other dman has won a Hart lately than Pronger?

Pronger > Leetch, MacInnis, and Coffey. In overall ability and not too mention his mean side, Pronger's just better, and I hate his guts.

Offensive number's aren't everything.

I don't even want to ask what your case is for having him above Shore or Harvey or Bourque...

More Cups, Norris Trophies, Conn Smythe, better defensively, even nominated for some Byngs.

I think the trophy argument is used in every case except Lidstrom vs Bourque, probably because one is Canadian and one is European.

As you said, Lidstrom's chief competition in the last decade was Niedermayer and Pronger. In the 90s, the competition for the Norris inculded guys like Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, MacInnis, Coffey and Leetch. Most people would probably say that each of those defencemen is better than Pronger and Niedermayer. I would say that the recent crop of top end defencemen is the weakest group since the 60s. It's not unreasonable to expect that had Lidstrom's prime come in the 90s or 80s he would have won maybe 3-4 Norris trophies instead of 6. If his prime had come in the 70s he very well may not have won any Norris trophies. None of this diminishes Lidstrom as a player, it just means that his positional dominance may not be as impressive as players with similar or possibly even fewer accolades.

Lidstrom was a Finalist for the Norris for three years in the Nineties, once people started paying attention to him. Lidstrom was also without a doubt better than all the players you mentioned, other than Bourque, which is arguable.

Most people just point to Bourques numbers and say he was better, even though he hasn't had the Championship success as Lidstrom. Speculate all you want though on how he'd do in the 80's, if anything he'd be a PPG dman with ridiculously good defense.

Again, Lidstrom put to shame sure-fire HoFers, yet his competition was poor.

 

[JackSlater]

What other dman has won a Hart lately than Pronger?

Not Lidstrom. Does that mean that Pronger is better than Lidstrom too? Pronger's Hart year was great, but it seems to have had more to do with the media wanting a defenceman to win the trophy than the year being historically good. Also, if Jagr has been healthy he would have won it.

Pronger > Leetch, MacInnis, and Coffey. In overall ability and not too mention his mean side, Pronger's just better, and I hate his guts.

Offensive number's aren't everything.

You could make a case that Pronger is better than Leetch on a per game basis, but even then Leetch may still be better. I think Leetch's best sustained level of play was better than Pronger's. Pronger is definitely not better than MacInnis or Coffey though, and it has nothing to do with raw numbers. Coffey is by a decent margin the second best offensive defenceman ever. The gap between Coffey and Pronger offensively is bigger than the gap defensively. MacInnis is better than Pronger offensively and defensively. Offensively MacInnis is on a higher level than Pronger and I would give him the defensive edge as well based on observation.

More Cups, Norris Trophies, Conn Smythe, better defensively, even nominated for some Byngs.

I think the trophy argument is used in every case except Lidstrom vs Bourque, probably because one is Canadian and one is European.

Cups are a team award and have no bearing on the discussion. The Conn Smythe is also heavily influenced by team factors and has little significance here considering the disparity between Lidstrom's teams on average and Bourque's. The Byng has no relevance here. Norris trophies are significant, but the fact is that Bourque won 5 against stronger competition. Bourque finished second to peak Chelios and Coffey multiple times. That to me is more than enough to make up for the 1 extra Norris that Lidstrom has. The question of who was better defensively was up for debate, but even if I give Lidstrom the edge there Bourque's offensive edge is greater. You also conveniently forgot to list Bourque's edge 19-11 edge in all star team appearances... which came against tougher competition.

Lidstrom was a Finalist for the Norris for three years in the Nineties, once people started paying attention to him. Lidstrom was also without a doubt better than all the players you mentioned, other than Bourque, which is arguable.

Most people just point to Bourques numbers and say he was better, even though he hasn't had the Championship success as Lidstrom. Speculate all you want though on how he'd do in the 80's, if anything he'd be a PPG dman with ridiculously good defense.

Again, Lidstrom put to shame sure-fire HoFers, yet his competition was poor.

Yes Lidstrom is better than all the players I mentioned other than Bourque. The fact remains though that each of those players is good enough that they could take away a Norris from Lidstrom or Bourque if they had a particularly good year. Lidstrom only faced two players who realistically could have done this, Niedermayer and Pronger, and Pronger ended up getting injured multiple seasons in what should have been his prime. Niedermayer is worse than all of the players I mentioned as Bourque's competition. The fact is that Lidstrom's Norris competition was weaker than any that Bourque ever faced.

Regarding championship success... come on. Compare those Red Wing teams from the mid 90s until now to Bourque's Boston teams. It isn't remotely close.

 

[Derick*]

The idea isn't that good competition causes them to be better or makes them better by definition. The idea is that bad competition will give them more trophies and higher scoring rankings than they would with equal skill in a different era (and good competition will give them fewer than in a different era, even if their individual skill were equal) and that in so far as we use those criteria to measure them, we should adjust the weight of those criteria depending on their competition.

If you take a picture of one of your friends beside one of those height-measuring stickers stores have beside doors so the security camera can record the height of criminals to help identify them, and the top of his head is where it says 5 - 9, but later you notice that the sticker was an inch higher than it should have been, you'd conclude that he's 5 - 10. It's not because the sticker being higher "made him taller." It's because the sticker being higher made him appear shorter by that meter, so we have to adjust the result from that meter to get his real height.

Similarly, Brad Park wasn't "made better" by playing at the same time as Orr, and Martin St. Louis wasn't "made worse" by peaking in 2004 and not the 80s (and no one means to imply either of those things), but Park got fewer Norrises than he would in most eras because he was competing with Orr, and St. Louis got one more Hart than he would in most eras because he wasn't competing with someone like Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[JaymzB]

More Cups, Norris Trophies, Conn Smythe, better defensively, even nominated for some Byngs.

Lidstrom
Norris: 6
Stanley Cup: 4
Conn Smythe: 1

Harvey
Norris: 7 (only exsisted for 13 of the 19 seasons played)
Stanley Cup: 6
Conn Smythe: 0 (Did not exsist while Harvey played)

Maybe you should learn some history first, before discussing it with the big boys...

 

[overg]

The idea isn't that good competition causes them to be better or makes them better by definition. The idea is that bad competition will give them more trophies and higher scoring rankings than they would with equal skill in a different era (and good competition will give them fewer than in a different era, even if their individual skill were equal) and that in so far as we use those criteria to measure them, we should adjust the weight of those criteria depending on their competition.

The entire problem with this line of thinking though is that it requires you to compare competition versus competition. Which is just a silly extra step. Why bother comparing Coffey to Pronger? Cut to the chase and directly compare Bourque to Lidstrom.

Even if you don't agree with the conclusion, it's a logical argument to say "Bourque's offense and physical advantages outweigh Lidstrom's defensive advantage, and thus I think he's the better player." That's directly comparing the players to one another.

It also makes sense to say "I saw all of the 80's greats, and I don't think Lidstrom would have won six Norris trophies against that crop."

What doesn't make a lick of sense is saying "Bourque had more All Star appearance than Lidstrom against better competition, thus he is better." Why bother comparing competition? If you saw who Bourque played against, you saw Bourque. And if you saw who Lidstrom played against, you saw Lidstrom. Just go right to the first argument I outlined above, and directly compare the two.

Short form: the competition argument is valid when it comes to explaining why trophy/awards counts aren't reliable, but it's pure nonsense when used to support that one player is actually better than another. Unfortunately, those who use the competition argument rarely just stop at the trophy count portion of the argument.

 

[revolverjgw]

I think the trophy argument is used in every case except Lidstrom vs Bourque, probably because one is Canadian and one is European.

Bourque had to beat prime Chelios, MacInnis, Coffey, Stevens, etc for his Norris trophies. Lidstrom beat guys like... a 39 year old MacInnis, a 40 year old Bourque, a 39 year old Chelios, a 39 year old Stevens... and guys like Niedermayer and Blake, who aren't close to the same tier as these guys. Pronger occasionally had amazing seasons but was way too inconsistent and injury prone to be a regular threat.

The competition in Lidstrom's era wasn't even close. Just look at the ridiculous ages of the other Norris finalists when Lidstrom finally started winning them. If prime Bourque played against Lidstrom, I bet he'd steal quite a bit of Lidstrom's hardware.

The "conspiracy" angle is pretty funny though

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think you're overstating Niedermayer and Pronger here. The former was not really considered an elite level defenseman until about 2003. The latter suffered from injury and consistency issues in the early part of the decade. Ancient versions of MacInnis, Chelios, and Stevens were pretty much Lidstrom's top competition for his early Norris wins.

Most people in here usually consider Lidstrom in the 5-7 range for all-time defensemen anyway, ahead of any of the names I've listed here. The competition argument only comes out when people resort to simple trophy counting, ignoring the fact that every award needs to be examined in proper context.

I agree.

Do people really consider Niedermayer a first ballot lock for the Hall?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I was referring to his counting stats as he has never had a wow season like Orr, Potvin or Coffey.

Personally I have Lidstrom in my top 3 Dmen of all time and most people here don't have him in their top 5.

I'd be interested in your top 5.

I doubt anyone that voted in the top 100 here had Lidstrom in their top 3. Then again, you're coming at it from a different angle too.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't even want to ask what your case is for having him above Shore or Harvey or Bourque...

Well since you didn't ask.
having watched both Bourque and Lidstrom play their entire careers I'll take Lidstrom by a slight edge.

Shore played in an NHL that was smaller in terms of # of teams and was unstable and also his size advantage back then when their were some really small guys probably made him seem better than he really was. I have to admit hat I have a hard time judging players that I have not seem before and reporting back then was little more than cheer leading.

There are also up to 7 HHOF on some of his Boston teams which only won the Cup 2 times so was it just another case of a star Boston Dman not being able to take his team to victory or were some of the exploits of players back then exaggerated? I think it was the latter.

Harvey is another tough one as I never saw him play and that Montreal team was so dominant in a 6 team league that it can become hard to grade individual guys from that era, especially Dmen as they played a less offensive role than later Dmen.
Lidstroms ability to play at such a high level for such a long period of time puts him in my top 3 , his NHL career and international career have been outstanding.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'd be interested in your top 5.

I doubt anyone that voted in the top 100 here had Lidstrom in their top 3. Then again, you're coming at it from a different angle too.

I honestly have a hard time placing players on an all time list that I never saw play but here is my top 5 of guys that i have seen play and I agree that Shore and Harvey top the lsit of dmen that I haven't seen with my own eyes

Here is my top 5 and the order I saw them in.

Orr- Took advantage of a perfect skill set and situation in Boston, injuries robbed us of seeing him play a complete career.

Potvin- was on a great track until getting injured at 26 and was an excellent Dman after that but not as good offensively. 4 cups helps his case a ton as well as leading his team in scoring the 1st couple of years in the league.

Robinson- a true workhorse and the anchor of a great Montreal D, and probably the most important player on those Hab teams as well, for a long stretch.

Bourque- was simply a hit as soon as he entered the league in a great situation in Boston but only won 1 cup which hurts his case a little bit.

Lidstrom- who is an under rated elite player IMO and probably the closest in the discussion with Orr but lets wait until he finishes playing before starting that argument. He simply has had the longest run of any dominant Dman in history IMO.

Just missing the cut
Coffey, Howe, Fetisov and current players who are still playing.