Thoughts on Kronwall this year...

[Jussha]

I know you are using it to help make an argument, but it is funny considering how often you dismiss this same thing when it goes counter to your own viewpoint. I understand what you were doing in offering your piece of evidence, was just pointing out the hypocritcial nature of it.

I have long said Konstantinov and Lidstrom was a very real debate. I personally thought Lidstrom was better, but my father would argue tooth and nail on that back then and a lot of people would. You're not incorrect, just stunned you would use Norris stuff at all given your distaste for it in various other threads.

The 97 finals are a good example though when you pointed out Lidstrom's coming out party, who did everyone think would play Lindros? It wasn't just the size factor, Vladdy while he played big is actually closer to Kronwall than most people realize in stature. At the time it was believed in that season he was better, I will say that about 97, Konstantinov was getting a lot of attention. Most of what Lidstrom did was hard to see, his teammates constantly talked about, but until that 97 finals the national media and a lot of hockey fans didn't understand it.

As early as the 95 Finals Yzerman had started calling Lidstrom the best player on the team. At the time I thought it was a slap at Fedorov, it still kind of was, but I am just saying both Shanahan and Yzerman from my memory were on record before Konstantinov even had his tragic accident on their belief that Lidstrom was the best D-man on the team and in the league.

The thing is here though Bob isn't actually using norris voting to support his claim in the sense that he thinks norris voting is a worthwhile measure or not, but simply pointing out to whoever said there was no public perception that Konstantinov may have been better than Lidstrom at the time.

Obviously, by virtue of norris voting, there were people in the hockey world (and probably red wings fans too, which you are both agreeing on) in the 95-97 timeline that did think Konstantinov to be better. This does not change the fact that Bob personally thinks Norris voting is a sh**ty measure of who the best dman is, but is consistent with his claim that whoever said public perception was that there was no debate for who was better between the 2 in that timeline is wrong.

Now that's not to say that Bob never makes hypocritical comments on this board, I think every wings fan at one point has made a hypocritical comment on these boards, considering for most part we all have certain players we like more than other players, and its easy to be a bit biased for those that we do favor, but there is absolutely nothing hypocritical in Bob using norris voting to show public perception between the 2 dmen was not black and white, while still thinking its a ****** measure for who he personally thinks in his own opinion, was the better dman.

 

[we like our team*]

if you want to know the opinions of fans then you could always search the old usenet groups

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Found the Shanahan quote interesting as he was always a big Lidstrom guy in the press as well.

In any event right now who Kronwall reminds me of is Coffey circa 94-95. There is a chance Kronwall could lead the league in D scoring this year, it isn't outlandish to think he will keep this up. But it is funny where this thread evolved to because Coffey was the 3rd best D-man on his team that year. Just his offensive numbers were incredible.

Kronwall however doesn't have that supporting cast and it shows.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Now that's not to say that Bob never makes hypocritical comments on this board, I think every wings fan at one point has made a hypocritical comment on these boards, considering for most part we all have certain players we like more than other players, and its easy to be a bit biased for those that we do favor, but there is absolutely nothing hypocritical in Bob using norris voting to show public perception between the 2 dmen was not black and white, while still thinking its a ****** measure for who he personally thinks in his own opinion, was the better dman.

I'm a bigger hypocrite than the pope!

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Found the Shanahan quote interesting as he was always a big Lidstrom guy in the press as well.

In any event right now who Kronwall reminds me of is Coffey circa 94-95. There is a chance Kronwall could lead the league in D scoring this year, it isn't outlandish to think he will keep this up. But it is funny where this thread evolved to because Coffey was the 3rd best D-man on his team that year. Just his offensive numbers were incredible.

Kronwall however doesn't have that supporting cast and it shows.

Kronner reminds me of a younger Jovo.
Great skills. But he has holes in his game.

Coffey won a Norris in Detroit, right?

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Found the Shanahan quote interesting as he was always a big Lidstrom guy in the press as well.

In any event right now who Kronwall reminds me of is Coffey circa 94-95. There is a chance Kronwall could lead the league in D scoring this year, it isn't outlandish to think he will keep this up. But it is funny where this thread evolved to because Coffey was the 3rd best D-man on his team that year. Just his offensive numbers were incredible.

Kronwall however doesn't have that supporting cast and it shows.

The way Wings fans viewed Vladdie-in terms of greatness in 96 and 97, was similar to the way Wings fans viewed Lidstrom in 98, 99.

The best defenseman in the league -- who was getting overlooked because of his Euro heritage.

I really wish Konstantinov would have had one season as the first unit PP guy.

Offensively, Konstantinov was tremendously gifted. He lacked Lidstrom's slapper. But he could run the PP like Kronwall does... and he would have been mobile like Kronwall..

He could have had a couple 60 or 70 point seasons with PP usage. But we needed him to be first unit PK...

Lidstrom was at his best in from 00 to 03, IMO. That was his peak, in my opinion, when he was arguably the best player in the game.

Was he better than Konstantinov? Statistically, there's no question. But again, stats are pumped by PP, so they are hard to measure.

That old Russian 5 was something else. They turned the NHL on its ear. The NHL hasn't seen anything like it since.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

The thing is here though Bob isn't actually using norris voting to support his claim in the sense that he thinks norris voting is a worthwhile measure or not, but simply pointing out to whoever said there was no public perception that Konstantinov may have been better than Lidstrom at the time.

Obviously, by virtue of norris voting, there were people in the hockey world (and probably red wings fans too, which you are both agreeing on) in the 95-97 timeline that did think Konstantinov to be better. This does not change the fact that Bob personally thinks Norris voting is a sh**ty measure of who the best dman is, but is consistent with his claim that whoever said public perception was that there was no debate for who was better between the 2 in that timeline is wrong.

Now that's not to say that Bob never makes hypocritical comments on this board, I think every wings fan at one point has made a hypocritical comment on these boards, considering for most part we all have certain players we like more than other players, and its easy to be a bit biased for those that we do favor, but there is absolutely nothing hypocritical in Bob using norris voting to show public perception between the 2 dmen was not black and white, while still thinking its a ****** measure for who he personally thinks in his own opinion, was the better dman.

That is fine and I understand that, you guys are missing that I full on said I remember this debate that it is incorrect to say that people didn't debate this openly in both the Wings fanbase and around the league.

My only point was I hate plus/minus as such whenever I bring it up, I say that with the strongest disclaimer. I wouldn't continue harping on the point either and use plus/minus for several posts to make a claim. I have spent enough time railing on it that it comes off strange if you do it.

It is what it is, but it was at the very least funny to me that a guy that takes liberties with Lidstrom's resume would fall back on this argument to make a point. Konstantinov spent much of the season with the Russian five, one of the greatest units in the history of NHL hockey. They played as a group and this was with Fedorov at the height of his NHL power. When he uses the argument of Fedorov, Yzerman, Draper, Datsyuk and Zetterberg helped make Lidstrom. Surely looking within that own subgroup and realizing that playing the bulk of your time with Fedorov from 95-97 when he was at his peak and for me peak Fedorov is among the 10 best complete players in league history is a very big deal.

Also a big part of why I always was in Lidstrom's camp was that Konstantinov got a lot of national love for his spectacular +/-, a stat like I said I don't believe all that much in. Is it worth noting? Yes, but I can't argue that is why he was better and it wouldn't be the first argument, that Shanahan quote is a good one. But when you spend years trashing something and then use it as support that is hard to stomach seriously is my point and odd to watch.

By the way the Norris is a reputation award and I agree with that point of Bob's argument. However, Lidstrom lost Norris Trophies in the late 90's when he was already the best D-man in the game because of that same reason. So while Weber should have won a couple years ago, Lidstrom was robbed a couple of times in my opinion anyway.

I don't always get along with Bob, I respect his opinion, but just felt it needed to be called out here, it wasn't from lack of reading or anything else. It was just tough to get this argument to scan when we have gone back and forth so many times on Lidstrom with this sometimes at the heart of the discussion.

 

[Roy S]

The thing is here though Bob isn't actually using norris voting to support his claim in the sense that he thinks norris voting is a worthwhile measure or not, but simply pointing out to whoever said there was no public perception that Konstantinov may have been better than Lidstrom at the time.

Obviously, by virtue of norris voting, there were people in the hockey world (and probably red wings fans too, which you are both agreeing on) in the 95-97 timeline that did think Konstantinov to be better. This does not change the fact that Bob personally thinks Norris voting is a sh**ty measure of who the best dman is, but is consistent with his claim that whoever said public perception was that there was no debate for who was better between the 2 in that timeline is wrong.

Now that's not to say that Bob never makes hypocritical comments on this board, I think every wings fan at one point has made a hypocritical comment on these boards, considering for most part we all have certain players we like more than other players, and its easy to be a bit biased for those that we do favor, but there is absolutely nothing hypocritical in Bob using norris voting to show public perception between the 2 dmen was not black and white, while still thinking its a ****** measure for who he personally thinks in his own opinion, was the better dman.

Actually, the poster said he didn't know of any Red Wing fans that held Konstantinov in higher regard. He didn't mention the national perception of the two players at all- which very easily could be two separate viewpoints b/c one group watches the players nearly every game (Red Wings fans) and the other has to divert their attention to every other team in the league and won't get as full a picture about comparing individual players on individual teams (Norris Trophy voters). Norris Trophy voting has little to do with what Red Wings fans may have thought at the time- those are two separate discussions and its a logical flaw to use one group's opinion (Norris trophy voters) as a sort of proxy for what another group thinks (Red Wing fans).

Not to mention the fact that the FlashyG said he thought Lidstrom was simply the better player. To which The Fading Captain replied to that specific assertion by FlashyG, "Norris Trophy voters disagreed with you." Only a few posts above that, he called into question the validity of Norris Trophy voting by suggesting it was a reputation based award. Not only is that an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy, but its also hypocrisy at its finest and quite funny to see.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Actually, the poster said he didn't know of any Red Wing fans that held Konstantinov in higher regard. He didn't mention the national perception of the two players at all. Norris Trophy voting has little to do with what Red Wings fans may have thought at the time- those are two separate discussions and its a logical flaw to use one group's opinion (Norris trophy voters) as a sort of proxy for what another group thinks (Red Wing fans).

Not to mention the fact that the FlashyG said he thought Lidstrom was simply the better player. To which The Fading Captain replied to that specific assertion by FlashyG, "Norris Trophy voters disagreed with you." Only a few posts above that, he called into question the validity of Norris Trophy voting by suggesting it was a reputation based award. Not only is that an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy, but its also hypocrisy at its finest and quite funny to see.

Bingo...

I will say both my brother and father are Wings fans that thought Konstantinov was better back then. A big deal with Lidstrom was how he just continued to get better even while elite, and a lot of the little things he was always doing really got noticed after he shut down the legion of doom in the 97 finals.

While Kronwall is a very good #2, you have to wonder how good the Wings would have been had both Fischer and Konstantinov stayed healthy. That changes the direction of the franchise, I very much think you're looking at a Montreal type run where we are at 16 or 17 banners at this point. Fischer and not Kronwall is the best we did after these guys, I really thought he was going to be a monster.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Actually, the poster said he didn't know of any Red Wing fans that held Konstantinov in higher regard. He didn't mention the national perception of the two players at all. Norris Trophy voting has little to do with what Red Wings fans may have thought at the time- those are two separate discussions and its a logical flaw to use one group's opinion (Norris trophy voters) as a sort of proxy for what another group thinks (Red Wing fans).

Not to mention the fact that the FlashyG said he thought Lidstrom was simply the better player. To which The Fading Captain replied to that specific assertion by FlashyG, "Norris Trophy voters disagreed with you." Only a few posts above that, he called into question the validity of Norris Trophy voting by suggesting it was a reputation based award. Not only is that an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy, but its also hypocrisy at its finest and quite funny to see.

I'm telling you what I said. If you want to misread -- you go right ahead

Norris Trophy votiing is what it is. It's a perception of the voters. Since we have no polls of 1997 Red Wings fans, I am using Norris voting to illustrate public perception of the day.

You can parse it in attempt to smear my credibility. But that shows how weak your point is.

Jman Fan decided to get all pissy because I suggested that the Wings need toughness. He said that by suggesting the Wings need toughness, that i was downplaying Lidstrom's contributions to the team.

I point out that throughout Lidstrom's career, the Wings employed toughness on the blueline.
Konstantinov. Festisov. Rouse. Macoun. Ward. Chelios. Fischer. Stuart.

Jman again asserts that I'm only posting to to denigrate Lidstrom -- which is utter ******** of course.

So I point out that Konstantinov was actually considered by MANY (including myself) as the better of the two when they played together.

This is hardly an uncontroversial opinion -- expect perhaps to a know-nothing who only started watching the Red Wings in the last 10 years.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Bingo...

I will say both my brother and father are Wings fans that thought Konstantinov was better back then. A big deal with Lidstrom was how he just continued to get better even while elite, and a lot of the little things he was always doing really got noticed after he shut down the legion of doom in the 97 finals.

While Kronwall is a very good #2, you have to wonder how good the Wings would have been had both Fischer and Konstantinov stayed healthy. That changes the direction of the franchise, I very much think you're looking at a Montreal type run where we are at 16 or 17 banners at this point. Fischer and not Kronwall is the best we did after these guys, I really thought he was going to be a monster.

Love how you say Bingo to a thread that is nothing but a baseless personal attack -- because he agreed with your baseless personal attack... Some of you people need to stop trying to catch me in incosistencies- citing 5-year-old opinions and such... half the time, you don't even understand the opinion. so your attempt at credibility smear looks extremely stupid

And now... back to the actual discussion

Losing Konstantinov was a giant blow to the franchise.

By the time we lost Fischer, though, Konstantinov would have nearly been done. And if he wasn't, the salary cap would have been murder

 

[Roy S]

I'm telling you what I said. If you want to misread -- you go right ahead

Norris Trophy votiing is what it is. It's a perception of the voters. Since we have no polls of 1997 Red Wings fans, I am using Norris voting to illustrate public perception of the day.

You can parse it in attempt to smear my credibility. But that shows how weak your point is.

FlashyG: "Lidstrom was always the better player though even if he didn't have as many fans early in his career."

In direct reply to the above post...

The Fading Captain: "And Norris Trophy voters in Konstantinov's final two seasons disagree with you."

Not sure what there is to misread. Even if you are trying to backtrack and use it as perception of what Red Wing fans think, that is a severe logical flaw and irrelevant to the discussion. So, either way, the point is moot.

Regardless, its not a personal attack. Commenting on the hypocritical nature and logical fallacies within an argument is only related to that specific argument- it has nothing to do with the person in general. It was just a terrible argument that got called out. Nothing more.

 

[RedWingsNow*]

FlashyG: "Lidstrom was always the better player though even if he didn't have as many fans early in his career."

In direct reply to the above post...

The Fading Captain: "And Norris Trophy voters in Konstantinov's final two seasons disagree with you."

Norris voters disagree with Flashy's assertion that people believed Lidstrom was better tan Konstantinov.

This is not a shock.

Wings fans LOVED Konstantinov. When Konstantinov was robbed of his Norris in 06. And Wings fans -- GERNERALLY believed Konstantinov was the best defenseman in the NHL -- and therefore, better than Lidstrom.

Not sure how old you are. But if you were a Wings fan in the late 90s, this would not be news to you

Lidstrom had a little bit of the Paul Coffey smell on him still in the late 90s... Fair or not, fans in the Joe called him Dickless Lidstrom.

it wasn't until the Lidstrom-Murphy pairing shut down the Legion of the Doom that Lidstrom's defense began to get attention.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Kronner reminds me of a younger Jovo.
Great skills. But he has holes in his game.

Coffey won a Norris in Detroit, right?

Yes he did, the 94-95 year. Where he put up good offensive numbers but as we all remember at times Coffey was an absolute dumpster fire in his own end, who does that remind you of?

 

[RedWingsNow*]

Yes he did, the 94-95 year. Where he put up good offensive numbers but as we all remember at times Coffey was an absolute dumpster fire in his own end, who does that remind you of?

Lots of guys. But Kronwall at least plays defense like a defenseman. Coffey did not.
Kronwall just isn't especially good at it.

 

[Uno Bench]

Lots of guys. But Kronwall at least plays defense like a defenseman. Coffey did not.
Kronwall just isn't especially good at it.

I saw you defending Kronwall in the "Kronwalled" thread on the main board wich means I don't dislike you much anymore (not that anyone cares) . About Kronwalls hitting. We don't teach hitting like that in Sweden, Kronwalls talent for making hits is extraordinary. Most of his "victims" are bigger than him, still he manages to hit them whit success, cleanly and looking good while doing it, the most talented hitter to ever come out of Europe maybe.

Forsberg knew how to hit too, but he was bigger and stronger, the same could be said of Ulf Samuelsson, Douglas Murray and maybe Öhlund. They are not in the same mold as Kronwall though.

 

[14ari13]

So 17 points and now he is -4. Seems like he has gone from -9 to -4 after switching from Lashoff to Ericsson.

 

[Epsilon]

So 17 points and now he is -4. Seems like he has gone from -9 to -4 after switching from Lashoff to Ericsson.

This isn't exactly shocking. Kronwall is obviously not Nicklas Lidstrom who could carry stiffs and guys past their prime on his pairing (Bykov, Dandenault, Olausson, etc.). He needs someone more defensively responsible to cover for him while he plays his open offensive style.

Kronwall and E is no superstar first pairing but it's a good enough one.

 

[Ennui]

Yes he did, the 94-95 year. Where he put up good offensive numbers but as we all remember at times Coffey was an absolute dumpster fire in his own end, who does that remind you of?

Quincey. The answer is Quincey.

 

[JmanWingsFan]

Norris voters disagree with Flashy's assertion that people believed Lidstrom was better tan Konstantinov.

And this is exactly why you're argument is terrible. When we bring up Lidstrom's 7 Norris Trophies, voted on by those same Norris voters, you shrug it off and call it a reputation award. When the Norris voters agree with you, you use it as an assertion to prove your point. It's confirmation bias, and not to mention a blatant double standard.

And Flashy brought up a better point, anyways, by pointing out that Yzerman and Shanahan and Co. were already saying then that Lidstrom was the best defender on the team.