What does Lidstrom have to do to be considered better than Bourque?

[Reds4Life]

?.....it is not just "my opinion". It is the consensus of the History section....

Few things in life are universally accepted....

....if you are unhappy with the results and feel you have a persuasive argument you should get involved in the debate/voting next time. Until then....

Welcome to our section, , and enjoy our list....Or don't.

But acting as if it is one poster or anothers singular opinion is fallacious.

What is this..I don't even...

I think 70's makes a good point. What's the difference between Orr winning 2 times in 9 years, and Lidstrom winning 4 times in 19 years?

After 9 years, Lidstrom "only" had 2 Cups as well. At the same age as Orr's last healthy season (age 26), Lidstrom had 1 Cup.

4 Cups in 100 years is better than 2 in 6. In the end, you won twice as many Cups. Nothing guarantees Orr would have won 2 more cups.
There are no points for being unable to play.

If you mean that he personally and directly prevented those goals, then yes. If you mean he was just on the ice for 15 fewer, that is a responsibility that I'd attribute to the team, whereas player contribution models don't work the opposite way in reverse, there are no points just for "being there".

And what is more likely to get more attention?

"wrong" is impossible to conclusively prove, but it's certainly questionable because you seem to have a modern/european bias and those two are neither modern nor european.

And whoever ranks Morenz over Hasek has old/Canadian bias? Or that one is actually the correct, unbiased opinion. You tell me, Canadian

In the end, the ranking is incredibly subjective. Beyond the big4 at least. At least I am not afraid to say that yes, I am biased and yes I think Hasek is better than Morenz and Lidstrom than Mikita.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I disagree with you.

That's cool.

It is much easier to appreciate offense than defense. This, of course, leads to more accolades.

Quite likely true, but it doesn't follow that players who win accolades are weaker at defense.

 

[arrbez]

4 Cups in 100 years is better than 2 in 6. In the end, you won twice as many Cups. Nothing guarantees Orr would have won 2 more cups.
There are no points for being unable to play.

Sure, but we're talking about team success (specifically, the success of Lidstrom's Wings vs. Orr's Bruins), and in the comparable timeframes (each player's first 9 years), both won it twice. Orr's Bruins didn't fail after 1975, because Orr's Bruins didn't exist after 1975.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You tell me, Canadian

Let's keep nationalistic accusations out of this forum. (I won't ask again)

 

[seventieslord]

No you missed the point. I said that Wings PLUS Lidstrom are better team than Bruins PLUS Orr because they won twice as many Cups in a more competitive league.

OK, but that's clearly not true.

The numbers you posted are skewed because the game has changed too much between then (Orr) and now (Lidstrom).

I don't care if the game has changed. The point has always been to score more and get scored on less. With that said, I completely realize that there were different league landscapes in terms of homw many teams were competitive or legitimate contenders, and how bad the worst players were, etc. I've compared Orr/s on/off numbers to other top players of the time to see how dominant he was, and did the same for 80s and 90s guys, and though it certainly became harder to have an insane figure like Orr (who nearly doubled his team's GF:GA ratio when on the ice), Orr still outperformed the "mere superstars" of his time more than anyone else ever did.

 

[canucksfan]

4 Cups in 100 years is better than 2 in 6. In the end, you won twice as many Cups. Nothing guarantees Orr would have won 2 more cups.
There are no points for being unable to play.

Why is how many Cups a player wins important to judging how good that player is? If Lidstrom played on the Islanders his whole career he would have won 0 Cups. If that did happen is somehow he a worse player?

 

[seventieslord]

And whoever ranks Morenz over Hasek has old/Canadian bias? Or that one is actually the correct, unbiased opinion. You tell me, Canadian

In the end, the ranking is incredibly subjective. Beyond the big4 at least. At least I am not afraid to say that yes, I am biased and yes I think Hasek is better than Morenz and Lidstrom than Mikita.

Good for you. But I view all players as objectively as possible. the only "bias" involved is to what degree I weigh the various factors involved.

 

[Reds4Life]

Let's keep nationalistic accusations out of this forum. (I won't ask again)

Have you noticed that smiley? I was clearly reacting to the fact that he said I had European bias. "Canadian" was not an accusation, read it again please.

I don't care if the game has changed. The point has always been to score more and get scored on less. With that said, I completely realize that there were different league landscapes in terms of homw many teams were competitive or legitimate contenders, and how bad the worst players were, etc. I've compared Orr/s on/off numbers to other top players of the time to see how dominant he was, and did the same for 80s and 90s guys, and though it certainly became harder to have an insane figure like Orr (who nearly doubled his team's GF:GA ratio when on the ice), Orr still outperformed the "mere superstars" of his time more than anyone else ever did.

I don't even know why you brought it up, Orr is clearly the best dman ever and I never said or implied otherwise. I only said that Wings+Lidstrom are a better team than Bruins+Orr based on Cup wins.

Why is how many Cups a player wins important to judging how good that player is? If Lidstrom played on the Islanders his whole career he would have won 0 Cups. If that did happen is somehow he a worse player?

You completly missed the point. I compared TEAMS, not PLAYERS.

Good for you. But I view all players as objectively as possible. the only "bias" involved is to what degree I weigh the various factors involved.

In the end you have to make a decision and it is not possible to not be biased when comparing across eras and positions. But I have to admit that you are one of the fairest posters (Hockey Outsider and The Devil Made Me as well).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Have you noticed that smiley? I was clearly reacting to the fact that he said I had European bias. "Canadian" was not an accusation, read it again please.

I'm referring to the body of work in the thread. If you're here to have an intelligent conversation, you're welcome here. If you're here to sling xenophobic arrows, your time here will be short (that goes for everyone here, not just you).

 

[seventieslord]

Why is how many Cups a player wins important to judging how good that player is? If Lidstrom played on the Islanders his whole career he would have won 0 Cups. If that did happen is somehow he a worse player?

He wouldn't be as beloved and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But if we were, I'd be pointing to the fact that the Isles had a GF:GA ratio of 0.84 without him and 1.34 with him and showing how underappreciated he is.

He would be the same player, in different circumstances, and ideally, viewed just the same as he is now, but unfortunately, probably wouldn't be.

I don't even know why you brounght it up, Orr is clearly the best dman ever and I never said or implied otherwise. I only said that Wings+Lidstrom are a better team than Bruins+Orr.

yes, they are... except for the fact that they aren't.

 

[lextune]

What is this..I don't even...

...and I rest my case, lol.

What is hard to understand about that post?

You keep referring to the HOH list as my opinion, and I was informing you are the incredibly simple fact that it is the consensus of the History section.

Consensus decision making is a group decision making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also the resolution or mitigation of minority objections. Consensus is defined by Merriam-Webster as, firstly – general agreement and, secondly – group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together. It is used to describe both general agreement and the process of getting to such agreement.

....seemed pretty straightforward, but I am happy to clarify it further for you.

 

[overg]

Why is how many Cups a player wins important to judging how good that player is? If Lidstrom played on the Islanders his whole career he would have won 0 Cups. If that did happen is somehow he a worse player?

It shouldn't be an all or nothing type question. Individual players certainly don't win Cups, so they shouldn't get all of the credit for team success. On the other hand, star players do contribute greatly to Cups, so it's not as if they should get zero credit for Cups, either.

At the end of the day, we know that Lidstrom was the number one defenseman on four Stanley Cup winning teams, and we know that the was the best player on the ice for one of those four teams. He should get credit for that. But that's not the same as saying he's automatically better than someone like Bourque, who we only know to have been good enough to be the number one defenseman on one Cup team.

To put it another way, if the two had identical careers in every other way (teammates, eras, points scored, trophies won, etc.) but Lidstrom won four Cups and Bourque only won one, of course Lidstrom should be judged better. But they did not have identical careers, so there are dozens of factors which could logically influence the vote the other way.

 

[Reds4Life]

I'm referring to the body of work in the thread. If you're here to have an intelligent conversation, you're welcome here. If you're here to sling xenophobic arrows, your time here will be short (that goes for everyone here, not just you).

Show me where.
You quoted my post saying it is accusatory. But it was nothing but a well meant pointer to the fact that a Canadian said I had European bias.

You were wrong, simple as that.

...and I rest my case, lol.

What is hard to understand about that post?

You keep referring to the HOH list as my opinion, and I was informing you are the incredibly simple fact that it is the consensus of the History section.

...seemed pretty straightforward, but I am happy to clarify it further for you.

Oh I understood your post. I simply cringed at the fact that you, who says that "Lidstrom is not even close to Bourque", were part of that panel, and that you actually think this is *your* section.
The fact that incredibly biased person like you can influence the list speaks volumes.

 

[MXD]

The Canadian/now Boston bias is amazingly thick here. And the typical crap of you obviously don't what you are talking about happens whenever someone goes against the bias.

There is SURELY NOT a Quebec's bias, whether it's on hfboards or in the media.

(Except for our media, which are extremely biased towards Quebec).

 

[BraveCanadian]

If you mean that he personally and directly prevented those goals, then yes. If you mean he was just on the ice for 15 fewer, that is a responsibility that I'd attribute to the team, whereas player contribution models don't work the opposite way in reverse, there are no points just for "being there".

I've compared Orr/s on/off numbers to other top players of the time to see how dominant he was, and did the same for 80s and 90s guys, and though it certainly became harder to have an insane figure like Orr (who nearly doubled his team's GF:GA ratio when on the ice), Orr still outperformed the "mere superstars" of his time more than anyone else ever did.

ESGA and ESGF and +/- are all unit stats so r-on and r-off fall into the same issue you brought up above. We can say that all indications are Orr was mostly responsible but we can't say it for sure.

Why is one gospel around here and the other in need of proof?

I think the fact that Orr and Esposito would have been played together as much as possible and the Bruins lacked anyone remotely comparable to the highest scoring player of all time and the highest scoring defenseman of all time when they were off the ice makes it really *not* a big surprise that he posted such a great r-on and r-off compared to the rest of the team.

For example in the biggest year (71) do we have that single seasons ratings for Espo and Orr? I'm just curious how they compare. Orr would be dragging up some of the other Bruins while Espo was resting on the bench but I wonder how Espo looks, basically.

 

[JackSlater]

And IMO again MY OPINION Lidstrom was the non-winner due to scandalous voting. See Rob Blake and Al MacInnis.

I would agree that Lidstrom probably should have placed ahead of Blake, but there was nothing remotely scandalous about MacInnis winning the award in 1999. He was plainly better than Lidstrom, both offensively and defensively. Clearly the best defenceman in the league that season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I would agree that Lidstrom probably should have placed ahead of Blake, but there was nothing remotely scandalous about MacInnis winning the award in 1999. He was plainly better than Lidstrom, both offensively and defensively. Clearly the best defenceman in the league that season.

Yeah Blake was an iffy Norris winner but I think MacInnis was very deserving - he had an excellent season.

20 goals as a defenseman in '99 is something.. played 29 minutes a game and was a solid +33 on a team with only 28 more goals for than against overall.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would agree that Lidstrom probably should have placed ahead of Blake,

Yeah Blake was an iffy Norris winner.

Rob Blake 401 (27-12-8-2-1)
Nicklas Lidstrom 369 (15-22-10-5-0)
Chris Pronger 316 (8-15-23-5-1);

We can debate whether Blake was deserving, but the result was clear and non-scandalous. Even if you combine first-and-second place votes, Lidstrom still finishes behind Blake. It wasn't like he got edged out on a technicality or something.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Bourque was a better offensive player, and Lidstrom is a better defensive player.

I'll take the guy who has never missed the playoffs and has been the constant among Detroit's 4 Stanley Cups.

Fun fact: Since Nicklas has entered the league, the Red Wings have NEVER had a losing season. Detroit's last losing season? '90-'91: the year before he arrived.

 

[seventieslord]

ESGA and ESGF and +/- are all unit stats so r-on and r-off fall into the same issue you brought up above. We can say that all indications are Orr was mostly responsible but we can't say it for sure.

Why is one gospel around here and the other in need of proof?

I think the fact that Orr and Esposito would have been played together as much as possible and the Bruins lacked anyone remotely comparable to the highest scoring player of all time and the highest scoring defenseman of all time when they were off the ice makes it really *not* a big surprise that he posted such a great r-on and r-off compared to the rest of the team.

For example in the biggest year (71) do we have that single seasons ratings for Espo and Orr? I'm just curious how they compare. Orr would be dragging up some of the other Bruins while Espo was resting on the bench but I wonder how Espo looks, basically.

Well, that's a good point and I'm glad you brought it up because it really does strengthen Orr's case.

1971:

Orr: 3.23 on, 1.31 off
Esposito: 2.17 on, 1.81 off

with those figures and the available even strength GF/GA stats, as well as what we know about each player's ice time, someone with better math skills could probably give a very solid estimate of what percentages of ES time were spent with just Orr on the ice, just Espo, both, and neither, and what the team's ratios were in all situations.

 

[overpass]

ESGA and ESGF and +/- are all unit stats so r-on and r-off fall into the same issue you brought up above. We can say that all indications are Orr was mostly responsible but we can't say it for sure.

Why is one gospel around here and the other in need of proof?

Maybe we can't be 100% sure that Orr was a huge game-changer at even strength, but I think we can be 99.99% sure from the numbers alone. Over hundreds of games, goals for, and goals against, and Orr's numbers are so much better than his teammates or anyone else. Even if we didn't know anything else about Bobby Orr that would be strong evidence.

And we also know that Bobby Orr is considered the greatest player of all time by many people. So the numbers are compatible with what we already know.

If you want to throw doubt on his numbers, it's possible that his coaches put him out for more than his share of offensive zone faceoffs, which would boost his plus-minus a little. But that would be a minor effect, and there's only so much a coach can do to leverage the minutes of a guy who is averaging 30 minutes a game already.

I think the fact that Orr and Esposito would have been played together as much as possible and the Bruins lacked anyone remotely comparable to the highest scoring player of all time and the highest scoring defenseman of all time when they were off the ice makes it really *not* a big surprise that he posted such a great r-on and r-off compared to the rest of the team.

For example in the biggest year (71) do we have that single seasons ratings for Espo and Orr? I'm just curious how they compare. Orr would be dragging up some of the other Bruins while Espo was resting on the bench but I wonder how Espo looks, basically.

I don't have any numbers to directly see how much Orr and Esposito played together. But Orr's plus-minus numbers were quite a bit better than Esposito's. That suggests that they at least spent a fair bit of time not playing together, and (Boston with Orr and without Esposito) was a lot better than (Boston with Esposito and without Orr).

1967-68 to 1974-75

Bobby Orr: 996 ESGF, 458 ESGA, 2.17 R-ON, 1.10 R-OFF
Phil Esposito: 816 ESGF, 509 ESGA, 1.61 R-ON, 1.41 R-OFF

1970-71

Bobby Orr: 165 ESGF, 51 ESGA, 3.23 R-ON, 1.30 R-OFF
Phil Esposito: 133 ESGF, 61 ESGA, 2.17 R-ON, 1.82 R-OFF

Also, since this is a thread about Lidstrom...

Data from the last few years show that Lidstrom has been playing against the toughest competition in the league, as high as any defenceman. This certainly has had a negative effect on his ESGF/ESGA and plus-minus numbers, so those underrate his contribution at even strength.

But when he's being compared against, say, Ray Bourque and Denis Potvin, it's likely that those guys faced the other team's best as well, although there aren't any numbers to back that up. So I'm not sure Lidstrom should get any extra credit for facing the other team's best when comparing him to Bourque or Potvin. I'm also not sure how long Lidstrom has been playing that role...was he facing the opposition's best in 2000? 1996?

 

[arrbez]

Bourque was a better offensive player, and Lidstrom is a better defensive player.

I'll take the guy who has never missed the playoffs and has been the constant among Detroit's 4 Stanley Cups.

Damn you Ray Bourque! Why did you miss the playoffs that one time in 1997 when you were injured and missed 20 games? With Josef Stumpel leading the team in scoring and a revolving door of backup-calibre goaltenders, those Bruins should have been a shoo-in for the playoffs!

 

[arrbez]

I don't have any numbers to directly see how much Orr and Esposito played together. But Orr's plus-minus numbers were quite a bit better than Esposito's.

From 1967-1975, Bobby Orr's +/- is almost twice as high as Esposito's (and after Orr, Esposito is second in the league over that span).

Orr: +579
Esposito: +314

So that's either a lot of time spent apart, or a lot of damage done by one player when the other wasn't on the ice. Plus/Minus isn't really a very good stat, but in this case it's a good indicator that Orr and Esposito didn't play the entire game together, or anywhere close to that. It's also just plain impressive to see Orr so consistently far ahead of anyone else in that statistic. The only two (healthy) seasons he didn't lead the league in +/- were his 46 game rookie season, and in 1973 when he only played 63 games.

 

[seventieslord]

I created an excel spreadsheet to figure out the amount of time that was spent with just orr on the ice, just espo, neither, and both. you just change the variables for total minutes in each situation (with the total being 46 and Orr's minutes being 30 and Espo's being 24) and see what on/off numbers it spits out for them. It's trial and error unless you're a really really analytical thinker. so far I've been able to easily get Orr's ratios to come out right, but the variables I used give wacky results for Espo (they make him look better than he was) - I'm still playing with this, but if anyone wants to give it a shot, PM me and I'll send the file.

or... make it work in reverse, with the final ratios being the constants! now there's an idea.

 

[therealkoho]

~.... I used give wacky results for Espo (they make him look better than he was) ~.......

if you ask Phil he definitely was better than he was