Lidstrom's place in history - ALL DISCUSSIONS OF LIDSTROM'S "ALL TIME RANKING" HERE

By minutes, you mean that Lidstrom played 2 seconds more per game at ES and 11 seconds more per game at PK, with Chelios playing 15 more minutes overall at ES, right?

I'm getting pretty sick of Rhiessan and I being accused of bias. First of all, Rhiessan agrees that Lidstrom was the best defenseman that year. He's only trying to clear up just how much better, so as to weigh Lidstrom's competition to Bourque's. So it looks like he and I are in agreement (we're not) because we're both trying to show how Chris Chelios was used that season - something that Hardyvan has been colorfully portraying as inferior to Lidstrom's ES and PK time, when it is absolutely negligible.

Secondly, I've been biting my tongue for a while now about how all of the "aggressive stances" you talk about have to do with recent Detroit Red Wings players (Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Osgood, Hasek). I've seen threads where people try to strip away a unanimous Hart Trophy from Mark Messier just to prop up Steve Yzerman (not to mention the recent Rob Blake fiasco, where he almost doubled-up on 1st Place votes), but somehow I'm the "aggressive" one for believing Chris Chelios was better than Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02, something that 45-53% of the voters believed as well?

If you want to advocate for Steve Yzerman as a Top-20 player or Chris Osgood as a HOFer, I'll be the first one in line, supporting the cause. When you enter my house, you have to literally pass under an Al the Octopus dangling from my ceiling. So may I ask again: Stop accusing us of bias, please? I hate Ed Belfour, not Nicklas Lidstrom.

The 1992 Hart shouldn't have gone to Messier, but anyone arguing it belonged to Yzerman has an equally weak case. It should have been a TRUE unanimous vote for Lemieux. How it went to Messier, especially as heavily as it did, I still do not understand. Lemieux didn't receive even a single first-place vote, despite winning the Art Ross (and 24 points ahead of Messier) in only 64 games.

Messier had a better all-around game, but not better enough to make up that difference. Not even CLOSE to enough.

So Lidstrom's competition was at worst comparable to Bourque's. And Lidstrom dominated it to a greater degree.

Blake and Leetch as even is pretty bad. That's a massive edge to Leetch given his peak in the Norris years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian

Kind of like it boggles my mind how Bourque gets double credit for his team being relatively weaker in every one of these arguments.

Lidstrom usually gets penalized twice for his team being relatively stronger in every one of these arguments.

Usually it goes like this:

Bourque's team was soooo much better with him on the ice compared to when he was off AND we excuse that he didn't do as well in the playoffs or have success as his teams best player because his team was poor.

Meanwhile, Lidstrom didn't stand out as much as he should have on his stacked team and we also reduce all his accomplishments because of the stronger depth his teams had. Oh, and as always his competition wasn't as good for his individual trophies.. even though as was shown up thread he dominated that competition.

Most of the arguments used to try and tear down Lidstrom's accomplishments are very weak and at this point quite pedantic.

And I say this as a guy who has said before that I would pick Bourque if I had a gun to my head -- but really I think they were both amazing defensemen who had different styles of play mostly because of their respective team situations and the reining in of rushing defensemen in general over the more recent years.

So you're going to get around to pointing out where Lidstrom was getting "knocked around" in that post? I'm well aware of the debates for and against both of them, and I don't need a reminder that they are both tremendous defencemen.

Disagreeing with a unanimous vote from 1992: Perfectly acceptable
Disagreeing with a split-decision from 2002: Revisionist

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with a large majority, and by evidence of the 1992 Hart Trophy, clearly neither do you. So don't call me out as being revisionist or aggressive or seriously against the norm for being on one side of an evenly split debate, just because it's against one of your favorites. It's cheap.

Read my posts, dodge my points if you must, but don't pretend that I'm debating this with an agenda to change historical opinion.

Disagreeing with a unanimous vote from 1992: Perfectly acceptable
Disagreeing with a split-decision from 2002: Revisionist

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with a large majority, and by evidence of the 1992 Hart Trophy, clearly neither do you. So don't call me out as being revisionist or aggressive or seriously against the norm for being on one side of an evenly split debate, just because it's against one of your favorites. It's cheap.

Read my posts, dodge my points if you must, but don't pretend that I'm debating this with an agenda to change historical opinion.

Oh, I disagree with votes a lot of times. 2002 was unique in that the top two were from the same team, and in cases like that I tend to trust the fanbase more than the voters, as to whom was better. Byfugluin versus Enstrom is a perfect example.

Oh, I disagree with votes a lot of times. 2002 was unique in that the top two were from the same team, and in cases like that I tend to trust the fanbase more than the voters, as to whom was better. Byfugluin versus Enstrom is a perfect example.

Any "fan base" makes their assessments based on emotionalism rather than any kind of objective view point.

Any "fan base" makes their assessments based on emotionalism rather than any kind of objective view point.

Okeedokee. It's emotion that has me picking the player who produced 51% more than the other (not opinion), in my opinion played much better defensively and ended up playing 5 minutes per game more in the playoffs. Pure emotion... I'm crying now even thinking about it

Okeedokee. It's emotion that has me picking the player who produced 51% more than the other (not opinion), in my opinion played much better defensively and ended up playing 5 minutes per game more in the playoffs. Pure emotion... I'm crying now even thinking about it

I'm not talking about you specifically. However, you made an appeal to the team's fan base and I'm pointing out that a fan base, any fan base, is not a place to go if one wants an objective assessment.

I'm not talking about you specifically. However, you made an appeal to the team's fan base and I'm pointing out that a fan base, any fan base, is not a place to go if one wants an objective assessment.

Really disagree - go to any team's ind. forum during a season and you can get a pretty realistic feel of which players are doing well or not - especially in trying to get a handle on intangibles - like defensive play, work ethic, physicality, and taking dumb/smart penalties.

Nashville fans love Weber, but it was them that really made me notice and acknowledge Suter was not nearly as far behind as media votes have shown.

This was the 3rd post in this topic and says it all for me, except I would put Lidstrom & Potvin in the top 11.

Thank you. I tried to be as even-handed as possible with that post.

For me, Bourque has a clear offense edge on Lidstrom. In 1995-96, in his mid-30s and around the start of the Dead Puck Era, Ray Bourque scored 20 goals and 82 points in 82 games for the Boston Bruins.

Largely for that reason, I'm inclined to think that his 80s and early 90s stats, while probably slightly inflated by the hockey of the era, isn't that far off from what he would have produced in the most modern era.

In other words, I think that Bourque would have racked up several 20 goal and Point-Per-Game seasons even if his career had started when Lidstrom's did.

Lidstrom himself had one 20 goal season, and one PPG season, throughout his entire career. His offensive numbers are still excellent, of course, but I think it's clear that Bourque is a solid notch or two above Lidstrom on offense alone. And even if we agree that Lidstrom has an edge on defense, I don't think it's enough to make up Bourque's offense edge.

On the whole, I think that Bourque takes it, albeit narrowly.

I'm not as confident on Bourque/Lidstrom vs. Shore vs. Harvey, though, due to greater era disparity at play. The "eye test" counts for more here. While I think the "eye test" has some value, its a more subjective thing.

If you would bother reading, I ranked young Stevens over old, despite the general argument being the reverse "old Stevens better than young, but he got screwed on All-Star and Norris votes."

So tell me, why did a young Stevens get screwed in those years? Nothing to do with those years being the most talented and deepest field of D-man we have ever seen

Quote:

And it's not Prime Coffey; Prime Coffey is early to mid 80s. He was past his prime, and had one good season where voters assume based on offense and reputation that he was the best defenseman on his team, but a lot of Wings fans didn't/don't necessarily consider him to even have been the best on his pairing (with Lidstrom). I feel Coffey was better than Lidtrom that year, but Lidstrom definitely deserved more credit than he received. That's the case with 95-96, when Coffey beat Lidstrom in voting, but Lidstrom realistically belonged on the second team (and Konstantinov on the first team). IMHO, it should have been 1-4-7 instead of 4-5-6 that year.

I don't even know what to say to this, I'm too busy laughing. Coffey's prime was only in the early to mid 80's....

Quote:

As for "old" MacInnis, he posted 4/5 top-ten Norris finishes in seasons missing fewer than 20 games, plus a top-ten finish missing more than 20 games. Only in his last two seasons (once missing 23 games) did "old" Mac fail to make the top ten. That's 5/7, which is a better rate than "young" Mac's 60% for top-ten finishes and 70% for top-eleven finishes. So he had a Norris, a 2nd place finish, and more top-ten finishes compared to years played. He was 6th in points by a defenseman, compared to 3rd in 87-96, but that's more than made up by his defensive game.

Like I said, he was a better overall D-man but he wasn't a better D-man or player. He has better finishes as he got older because competition levels came down from the insane levels he faced when he was younger.

It's like you're writing a book here with the working title "Eva unit zero's Revisionist Guide to 80's and 90's D-men".
It will be sold in the Fiction section.

By minutes, you mean that Lidstrom played 2 seconds more per game at ES and 11 seconds more per game at PK, with Chelios playing 15 more minutes overall at ES, right?

I'm getting pretty sick of Rhiessan and I being accused of bias. First of all, Rhiessan agrees that Lidstrom was the best defenseman that year. He's only trying to clear up just how much better, so as to weigh Lidstrom's competition to Bourque's. So it looks like he and I are in agreement (we're not) because we're both trying to show how Chris Chelios was used that season - something that Hardyvan has been colorfully portraying as inferior to Lidstrom's ES and PK time, when it is absolutely negligible.

Secondly, I've been biting my tongue for a while now about how all of the "aggressive stances" you talk about have to do with recent Detroit Red Wings players (Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Osgood, Hasek). I've seen threads where people try to strip away a unanimous Hart Trophy from Mark Messier just to prop up Steve Yzerman (not to mention the recent Rob Blake fiasco, where he almost doubled-up on 1st Place votes), but somehow I'm the "aggressive" one for believing Chris Chelios was better than Nicklas Lidstrom in 2001-02, something that 45-53% of the voters believed as well?

If you want to advocate for Steve Yzerman as a Top-20 player or Chris Osgood as a HOFer, I'll be the first one in line, supporting the cause. When you enter my house, you have to literally pass under an Al the Octopus dangling from my ceiling. So may I ask again: Stop accusing us of bias, please? I hate Ed Belfour, not Nicklas Lidstrom.

For me, Bourque has a clear offense edge on Lidstrom. In 1995-96, in his mid-30s and around the start of the Dead Puck Era, Ray Bourque scored 20 goals and 82 points in 82 games for the Boston Bruins.

Largely for that reason, I'm inclined to think that his 80s and early 90s stats, while probably slightly inflated by the hockey of the era, isn't that far off from what he would have produced in the most modern era.

In other words, I think that Bourque would have racked up several 20 goal and Point-Per-Game seasons even if his career had started when Lidstrom's did.

Lidstrom himself had one 20 goal season, and one PPG season, throughout his entire career. His offensive numbers are still excellent, of course, but I think it's clear that Bourque is a solid notch or two above Lidstrom on offense alone. And even if we agree that Lidstrom has an edge on defense, I don't think it's enough to make up Bourque's offense edge.

The DPE didn't really start until '96-'97 when goals per game dropped below 6. '95-'96 was actually still fairly high scoring after it dropped the year before.

It's a big assumption that Bourque's numbers wouldn't have been hurt by the DPE even if he was in his prime. He had the benefit of playing in some very high scoring seasons up until the DEP and never hit 100 points. Once the DPE seasons hit his offensive output went with it.

I do agree that Bourque was more offensive minded than Lidstrom so he should get credit for that. I just think Lidstrom had a bigger edge than that defensively. Lidstrom was nearly always the last guy back and got beat less one on one than Bourque did. It wasn't always a matter of Bourque taking risks either, he simply got beat one on one more and I think the difference between the two defensively was even larger come playoff time.

The DPE didn't really start until '96-'97 when goals per game dropped below 6. '95-'96 was actually still fairly high scoring after it dropped the year before.

It's a big assumption that Bourque's numbers wouldn't have been hurt by the DPE even if he was in his prime. He had the benefit of playing in some very high scoring seasons up until the DEP and never hit 100 points. Once the DPE seasons hit his offensive output went with it.

I do agree that Bourque was more offensive minded than Lidstrom so he should get credit for that. I just think Lidstrom had a bigger edge than that defensively. Lidstrom was nearly always the last guy back and got beat less one on one than Bourque did. It wasn't always a matter of Bourque taking risks either, he simply got beat one on one more and I think the difference between the two defensively was even larger come playoff time.