Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[danincanada]

Oh and as long as we're putting so much stock in what Bowman says....

Quote:
Q: Mr. Bowman, as Gordie Howe turned 80 last week, there were lots of people trying to compare and figure out where he ranks now in the all time greats. How would you rank him next to Gretzky? Lemieux? Richard? — mike ward

SB: I’d put Bobby Orr in that group, too. He only played 10 seasons but he had a big impact on the game. I’ve always felt that if you were ever going to make a mold for a hockey player with five strengths — offense, defense, durability, toughness and versatility — you wouldn’t look past Gordie Howe. In my estimation, he was the best ever. It’s so hard to rank players from different eras, but to think that he got 100 points when he was 40 years old, he made 20 straight All-Star teams and was in the top five in scoring for 20 seasons and most of it in the six-team league. I have a hard time thinking you can get a better hockey player than Gordie Howe.

Bowman is being asked about the best players ever and he goes out of his way to include Orr.
Get that into ya's!
That should just about end that argument me thinks.
(Also note how much stock Bowman puts in the competition level of the 6 team league, just thought I would point that out...can you say opps )

So how about we just get back to where this discussion should be, talking about the #2-#6 spots and just leave good ole #1 alone like it should be.

This answer from Bowman is from 2008, before Lidstrom won his 4th Cup and 6th Norris. Bowman sounds like he's big on longevity, citing Howe as his #1 pick all-time because he put up a 100 point season at 40. Lidstrom just won the Norris at 41 so you might want to hold off with the celebration until Lidstrom's career is done.

 

[danincanada]

Where did Bowman pick Lidstrom?

This is Bowman talking about how similar Lidstrom and Harvey were:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/2508/scotty-bowman-on-those-lidstrom-harvey-comparisons

The other article is lost in cyberspace or something but it was posted on this board a while ago.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=862320

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ohhhhhh ok I get it now.
Orr's perceived dominance was a product of lesser competition at the time.
Hmmmmmm...now where O where have we heard that before...wait a minute, it'll come to me...hold on....oh, that's right, it comes up whenever there's a Bourque vs Lidstrom comparison.
Lidstrom's dominance while facing lesser competition is celebrated but Orr's should be ground into dust...gotcha!

Trying to have your cake and eat it too eh

Oh and no comment on what Bowman said?

Look it's not black and white like you always make it out to be. Orr was a great player but yes part of his dominance was due in part to the diluted talent base in the league at the time. Other parts were team situation and obviously his skill level. How much team situation and the era played is up for debate but to pretend that it didn't influence his stats is absurd.

As for Bowman's comments , they are comments. It's like polling the answer always depends on the question.

It would be interesting if you could get a group of older coaches together to evaluate and compare players but they would come with the same inherent basis, maybe even more so since sometimes opinions are engrained, and different criteria for evaluating player value as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah man, NY Times interview here
http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/scotty-bowman-answers-your-questions-2/

Thanks. Most of the questions are specific to the 2008 playoffs, so not as interesting as I thought it would be, but thanks.

The other article is lost in cyberspace or something but it was posted on this board a while ago.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=862320

Oh right. The article where Bowman said he wouldn't rank anyone ahead of Lidstrom. The other poster was misquoting Bowman, however, by saying that he picked Lidstrom over the others, which is not what he said.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This answer from Bowman is from 2008, before Lidstrom won his 4th Cup and 6th Norris. Bowman sounds like he's big on longevity, citing Howe as his #1 pick all-time because he put up a 100 point season at 40. Lidstrom just won the Norris at 41 so you might want to hold off with the celebration until Lidstrom's career is done.

Haha...You just keep on seeing what you want to see eh.
Lets refresh...Bowman is asked where Howe ranks among the all-time greatest ever, among Gretzky, Richard and Lemieux. Bowman picks Howe as his #1 but not before making sure Orr is included in that all-time greatest ever list.
Give it up my friend, it's over, no really, it is. That sound you hear in the back ground...yeah...that's the fat lady singing

Look it's not black and white like you always make it out to be.

At least I'm consistent in what I consider black and white.
Unlike many posters in this thread who are black or white, dependent on whether they are talking about Lidstrom or not.
If they are talking about Lidstrom, they have a white opinion but if it's Orr or Bourque or Harvey, then suddenly they have a black opinion on the very same subject and context...it's a joke.


If I simply say that my #1 d-man is a player that collected an inordinate amount of hardware over his career and that, for the most part, didn't have the competition that could play up to his level.

So who am I talking about, Orr or Lidstrom? Hmmm?

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Haha...You just keep on seeing what you want to see eh.
Lets refresh...Bowman is asked where Howe ranks among the all-time greatest ever, among Gretzky, Richard and Lemieux. Bowman picks Howe as his #1 but not before making sure Orr is included in that all-time greatest ever list.
Give it up my friend, it's over, no really, it is. That sound you hear in the back ground...yeah...that's the fat lady singing






At least I'm consistent in what I consider black and white.
Unlike many posters in this thread who are black or white, dependent on whether they are talking about Lidstrom or not.
If they are talking about Lidstrom, they have a white opinion but if it's Orr or Bourque or Harvey, then suddenly they have a black opinion on the very same subject and context...it's a joke.


If I simply say that my #1 d-man is a player that collected an inordinate amount of hardware over his career and that, for the most part, didn't have the competition that could play up to his level.

So who am I talking about, Orr or Lidstrom? Hmmm?

Black = Canadian
White = Weak Euro

 

[Hardyvan123]

Haha...You just keep on seeing what you want to see eh.
Lets refresh...Bowman is asked where Howe ranks among the all-time greatest ever, among Gretzky, Richard and Lemieux. Bowman picks Howe as his #1 but not before making sure Orr is included in that all-time greatest ever list.
Give it up my friend, it's over, no really, it is. That sound you hear in the back ground...yeah...that's the fat lady singing






At least I'm consistent in what I consider black and white.
Unlike many posters in this thread who are black or white, dependent on whether they are talking about Lidstrom or not.
If they are talking about Lidstrom, they have a white opinion but if it's Orr or Bourque or Harvey, then suddenly they have a black opinion on the very same subject and context...it's a joke.


If I simply say that my #1 d-man is a player that collected an inordinate amount of hardware over his career and that, for the most part, didn't have the competition that could play up to his level.

So who am I talking about, Orr or Lidstrom? Hmmm?

I'm glad to see that you are coming around to the possibility of there being a question to who number 1 is of all time finally.
I

 

[toob]

But to be honest Lidstrom is a better all-time hockey player than Yzerman. Detroit fans just really love Yzerman (as most do) for his great offensive numbers and play. Howe is highly regarded for his longevity (I don't know how, he was basically a point/game player for his career).

Has anyone noticed that the Red Wings have made the playoffs EVERY year since Lidstrom has been a DRW? He's the one constant on that team, the ultimate stabilizer.

only on hfboards would you get any kind of support for saying Lids was better than Stevie Y... ive never seen Lidstrom be so highly regarded elsewhere (in some cases by some people TOO highly regarded) most Red Wings fans at large would still have Yzerman above

think about it this way
in the late 90s and early 00s when Lidstrom was elite and a Norris contender/winner
Yzerman was still a better player until his knee finally blew out in 02
(also Fedorov too i think)

and even if you disagree... think about this
this is past his prime Yzerman
he was a much better player ten years earlier

Lids has been a constant for Detroit's success since the beginning
but lets not imply he was the sole reason
the Wings have been a good team aside from Lidstrom
put the best version of Lidstrom in the 90 season (take out Yzerman)
they dont make the playoffs... they do worse

and yes post-lockout the Red Wings continued their success
but remember the emergence of Dats and Zetterberg
a ton of credit has to be given to them
i think they have been just as good and valuable as Lids
dont forget the better goaltending they got from Osgood

oh and a better player than Gordie Howe?! lol
im not even interested in the old timers much but of all of them Gordie Howe would certainly have the least trouble playing hockey in ANY era

 

[Rhiessan71]

Black = Canadian
White = Weak Euro

Don't even dude.
Never mind that I have Hasek ranked #1, or that I have Jagr ranked about 5th all-time out of the forwards or even that I would prefer to watch OV over Crosby or that I have Fedorov ranked as one of the best two-way players in history either.
Gimme a break already, just because I only have Lidstrom at #4...I'm NA biased...gtfo!

I'm glad to see that you are coming around to the possibility of there being a question to who number 1 is of all time finally.
I

Oh no no. Nice try though.
The difference in my statement is that Orr didn't have the competition to compare to him because he was sooooo far above everyone else, forwards included.
Lidstrom was very good, is still good but his competition the last few years has only been good or above average and most importantly, inconsistent as all hell.
Lids just barely took the Norris home this year with a performance that wouldn't of qualified for the top 3 in any of the last 20 years.
Believe me I worded it very carefully so it rings true for both players but with very, very different circumstances.

And again...you can't even come up with enough of an argument to solidify Lidstrom free and clear as #3 or even #4 for that matter.
How in the F can you then honestly even attempt to justify #1.
Sorry, not happening. Last I checked Orr gets spoken of in the same breath as Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe. Lidstrom most certainly does not, hell I don't think I would even have him ranked above Yzerman and most definitely not above Jagr.
Try winning the argument at hand before starting another kk thanks.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Don't even dude.
Never mind that I have Hasek ranked #1, or that I have Jagr ranked about 5th all-time out of the forwards or even that I would prefer to watch OV over Crosby or that I have Fedorov ranked as one of the best two-way players in history either.
Gimme a break already, just because I only have Lidstrom at #4...I'm NA biased...gtfo!





Oh no no. Nice try though.
The difference in my statement is that Orr didn't have the competition to compare to him because he was sooooo far above everyone else, forwards included.
Lidstrom was very good, is still good but his competition the last few years has only been good or above average and most importantly, inconsistent as all hell.
Lids just barely took the Norris home this year with a performance that wouldn't of qualified for the top 3 in any of the last 20 years.
Believe me I worded it very carefully so it rings true for both players but with very, very different circumstances.

And again...you can't even come up with enough of an argument to solidify Lidstrom free and clear as #3 or even #4 for that matter.
How in the F can you then honestly even attempt to justify #1.
Sorry, not happening.
Try winning the argument at hand before starting another kk thanks.

And I and many others have Lidstrom #2. Talking about goalies you probably have Fehr near the top? Honestly how many games have you actually watched Lidstrom play? Not highlights on the NHL Network really watch the 60 minute games?

 

[Hanji]

only on hfboards would you get any kind of support for saying Lids was better than Stevie Y... ive never seen Lidstrom be so highly regarded elsewhere (in some cases by some people TOO highly regarded) most Red Wings fans at large would still have Yzerman above

think about it this way
in the late 90s and early 00s when Lidstrom was elite and a Norris contender/winner
Yzerman was still a better player until his knee finally blew out in 02
(also Fedorov too i think)

and even if you disagree... think about this
this is past his prime Yzerman
he was a much better player ten years earlier

Lids has been a constant for Detroit's success since the beginning
but lets not imply he was the sole reason
the Wings have been a good team aside from Lidstrom
put the best version of Lidstrom in the 90 season (take out Yzerman)
they dont make the playoffs... they do worse

and yes post-lockout the Red Wings continued their success
but remember the emergence of Dats and Zetterberg
a ton of credit has to be given to them
i think they have been just as good and valuable as Lids
dont forget the better goaltending they got from Osgood

Don't confuse the better player with the more valuable one.

While it's difficult to compare forwards to defencemen, I think Lidstrom is a better hockey player than Yzerman. Seriously, a strong case can be made Lidstrom is the 2nd best defenesemen all-time.
However, all in all, Yzerman has been more valuable to the Red Wing organization.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Don't even dude.
Never mind that I have Hasek ranked #1, or that I have Jagr ranked about 5th all-time out of the forwards or even that I would prefer to watch OV over Crosby or that I have Fedorov ranked as one of the best two-way players in history either.
Gimme a break already, just because I only have Lidstrom at #4...I'm NA biased...gtfo!

Oh no no. Nice try though.
The difference in my statement is that Orr didn't have the competition to compare to him because he was sooooo far above everyone else, forwards included.
Lidstrom was very good, is still good but his competition the last few years has only been good or above average and most importantly, inconsistent as all hell.
Lids just barely took the Norris home this year with a performance that wouldn't of qualified for the top 3 in any of the last 20 years.
Believe me I worded it very carefully so it rings true for both players but with very, very different circumstances.

And again...you can't even come up with enough of an argument to solidify Lidstrom free and clear as #3 or even #4 for that matter.
How in the F can you then honestly even attempt to justify #1.
Sorry, not happening. Last I checked Orr gets spoken of in the same breath as Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe. Lidstrom most certainly does not, hell I don't think I would even have him ranked above Yzerman and most definitely not above Jagr.
Try winning the argument at hand before starting another kk thanks.

Obviously I was joking as we will agree to disagree on this topic.

Hey I don't have a problem with you ranking Lidstrom at number 4 the problem i have and am trying to shed light on is that people only look at peak of 8 years compared to the high standard of Lidstrom for 15 plus, all of his years in my books are above average.

Competition is also on 2 counts, the players that a player is competing against for individual stats, ie. scoring lead and also the opposition that is trying to stop skill players from scoring. As the talent level increases and the degree of difficulty in league play increases the huge dominance factors decrease.

We can still see this with star jr players moving up to the NHL where they simply can't and don't dominate the same way against increased competition. Of course the degree this influences stats can be argued, as it can't be measured in any pure sense.

As for Orr getting mentioned in the same breath as those other players, if we are talking peak sure but if we are talking longevity and actual overall value he slips down a bit.

 

[toob]

Don't confuse the better player with the more valuable one.

While it's difficult to compare forwards to defencemen, I think Lidstrom is a better hockey player than Yzerman. Seriously, a strong case can be made Lidstrom is the 2nd best defenesemen all-time.
However, all in all, Yzerman has been more valuable to the Red Wing organization.

ofc the more valuable player can be different from the better player but they can be one and the same especially if they play on the same team at the same time...

again Yzerman was better/more valuable when Lids was at his best in the late 90s early 00s and Yzerman was a lot better in the late 80s early 90s... and even if you think Lids was better in the late 90s early 00s you have to think about how much better Yzerman was ten years earlier in his career

i dont think i can say Lidstrom is the 2nd best defenseman all-time tho i think he is the 2nd or 3rd best defenseman post-Orr but regardless even if Lids is a better defenseman than Yzerman is a forward so what?

that argument implies that forwards and defenseman are equal in such a way that a corresponding rank of forward and defensemen are the same... i think thats ridiculous because i think the best players have been and generally are forwards (especially centers)

how many forwards were better than Lidstrom (or whoever you think the best defenseman was) this season? a lot i would say

 

[Gobo]

And I and many others have Lidstrom #2. Talking about goalies you probably have Fehr near the top? Honestly how many games have you actually watched Lidstrom play? Not highlights on the NHL Network really watch the 60 minute games?

Orr is for sure the best defenseman. And it isn't very difficult to think that some people have two of Harvey/Shore/Bourque/Potvin ahead of Lidstrom.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Orr is for sure the best defenseman. And it isn't very difficult to think that some people have two of Harvey/Shore/Bourque/Potvin ahead of Lidstrom.

Conversely it isn't very difficult to think that many people have Lidstrom ahead of Harvey, Shore, Bourque and Potvin.

 

[Rhiessan71]

And I and many others have Lidstrom #2. Talking about goalies you probably have Fehr near the top? Honestly how many games have you actually watched Lidstrom play? Not highlights on the NHL Network really watch the 60 minute games?

Well...considering Yzerman was one of my favourite players and the Wings were my second favourite team since the mid 80's...I watched them quite often through out the years, or I should say decades!
BTW, while we're on the topic, how much did you actually watch Bourque? Hmmm?

No, I do not have Fuhr (I assume that's who you actually meant) near the top and does that make me biased against black people now?
I have Hasek #1 overall with Roy as the best in the playoff's.

I have no issue with you or anyone else that has Lidstrom at #2, that's your opinion and it's close enough that it's a valid argument.
However, if points are going to be made in Lidstrom's favour, especially ones that attempt to belittle Bourque in the process, I'm going to counter them with my own opinion and points.

No doubt that it's a close run thing between #2 to #4 (possibly #5 with Potvin) and Lidstrom does not make it an easy choice for me.
And you know, most of the time I don't even care where people rank them except when it's stated that any of the 3 (or 4 with Potvin) are clearly above the other. None of them have any semblance of a clear advantage over the others and to say otherwise is clearly wrong IMO.

Conversely it isn't very difficult to think that many people have Lidstrom ahead of Harvey, Shore, Bourque and Potvin.

No, you're right, it's not difficult to accept.
What does seem to be difficult, are people with such an opinion, accepting that that opinion is actually in the minority.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

At this point, I think it has become very difficult to make a case for Potvin over Lidstrom, unless you really only count a 1-3 year span when rating players. Kelly is arguably better than Potvin.

 

[Rhiessan71]

At this point, I think it has become very difficult to make a case for Potvin over Lidstrom, unless you really only count a 1-3 year span when rating players. Kelly is arguably better than Potvin.

I agree, maybe not so much about Kelly, due to there being some confusion over how much he actually played as a d-man over the years but I do agree with Potvin not being in the top 4 for me.
He very well could of been but after he went down in 1980, he just wasn't the same after. He was still one of the better d-men in the league but he had noticeably lost something.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Obviously I was joking as we will agree to disagree on this topic.

Hey I don't have a problem with you ranking Lidstrom at number 4 the problem i have and am trying to shed light on is that people only look at peak of 8 years compared to the high standard of Lidstrom for 15 plus, all of his years in my books are above average.

Competition is also on 2 counts, the players that a player is competing against for individual stats, ie. scoring lead and also the opposition that is trying to stop skill players from scoring. As the talent level increases and the degree of difficulty in league play increases the huge dominance factors decrease.

We can still see this with star jr players moving up to the NHL where they simply can't and don't dominate the same way against increased competition. Of course the degree this influences stats can be argued, as it can't be measured in any pure sense.

As for Orr getting mentioned in the same breath as those other players, if we are talking peak sure but if we are talking longevity and actual overall value he slips down a bit.

The only, repeat: only, way that Orr "slips down a bit" is via focus/emphasis on longevity. Absolutely nothing else about him, his play, or his legacy brings him down to the level of those in the 2, 3, 4 spots. For a guy who goes about his business fairly quietly, Lidstrom has done well to work himself into the top 4 or 5 discussion, but let's not even extend the line of reasoning that any number of quality years would eventually earn Lidstrom a spot above Orr (or Harvey, Bourque, and some might even say Shore, maybe Potvin) on some grounds of longevity/"career value". Orr, like others to whom we try to assign "ranks" around here, was simply so good that a relatively shorter career (12 seasons wouldn't seem quite so short if he had finished all of them) doesn't work against him on a meaningful level.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I agree, maybe not so much about Kelly, due to there being some confusion over how much he actually played as a d-man over the years but I do agree with Potvin not being in the top 4 for me.
He very well could of been but after he went down in 1980, he just wasn't the same after. He was still one of the better d-men in the league but he had noticeably lost something.

After Potvin/Kelly I have Fetisov/Robinson at #8-9. Tenth spot is tough to nail down.

Kelly overwhelmingly played defense for Detroit - except one year he played a third of the season as a forward due to injuries.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The only, repeat: only, way that Orr "slips down a bit" is via focus/emphasis on longevity. Absolutely nothing else about him, his play, or his legacy brings him down to the level of those in the 2, 3, 4 spots. For a guy who goes about his business fairly quietly, Lidstrom has done well to work himself into the top 4 or 5 discussion, but let's not even extend the line of reasoning that any number of quality years would eventually earn Lidstrom a spot above Orr (or Harvey, Bourque, and some might even say Shore, maybe Potvin) on some grounds of longevity/"career value". Orr, like others to whom we try to assign "ranks" around here, was simply so good that a relatively shorter career (12 seasons wouldn't seem quite so short if he had finished all of them) doesn't work against him on a meaningful level.

Longevity is only part of the equation, the other part is the diluted talent in the NHL at that point.

Orr was a great player, the best of his generation but it was a diluted time for the NHL from 67-75 and his talent put him in a unique situation to exploit the weak league at the time.

There is very little chance he would have been as dominant statistically if the NHL had stayed as a 6 team league and/or he played on a different team. California golden seals anyone?

To take his statistical dominance in this weak period, remember we almost lost to the Soviets in the 72 series, and compare recent Dmen both statistically and their role with Orr is a bit unfair and let's face the facts here no one can compete with a memory, the memory becomes perfect over time.

 

[seventieslord]

Longevity is only part of the equation, the other part is the diluted talent in the NHL at that point.

Orr was a great player, the best of his generation but it was a diluted time for the NHL from 67-75 and his talent put him in a unique situation to exploit the weak league at the time.

There is very little chance he would have been as dominant statistically if the NHL had stayed as a 6 team league and/or he played on a different team. California golden seals anyone?

To take his statistical dominance in this weak period, remember we almost lost to the Soviets in the 72 series, and compare recent Dmen both statistically and their role with Orr is a bit unfair and let's face the facts here no one can compete with a memory, the memory becomes perfect over time.

If you are saying Orr would have scored a certain percentage fewer points if the league didn't expand so fast, if Europe sent more players over, or if the WHA didn't take so many decent NHLers (or a combination of the three), meaning there would be many fewer poor players for him to exploit, I agree.

Where I get lost, is where this would affect Orr more than other star forwards who who were putting up huge point totals at the time. I think it's safe to say they all score about the same percentage less, and Orr's statistical dominance, on a relative level would remain unchanged.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

If you are saying Orr would have scored a certain percentage fewer points if the league didn't expand so fast, if Europe sent more players over, or if the WHA didn't take so many decent NHLers (or a combination of the three), meaning there would be many fewer poor players for him to exploit, I agree.

Where I get lost, is where this would affect Orr more than other star forwards who who were putting up huge point totals at the time. I think it's safe to say they all score about the same percentage less, and Orr's statistical dominance, on a relative level would remain unchanged.

I do think it bears consideration for any 70s star - there is no doubt it was a watered-down period for the NHL.

It's why I have Jagr well over LaFleur, for example, and I do not have Esposito where his scoring vs. peers should have him (probably a top 10 player of all-time).

 

[seventieslord]

I do think it bears consideration for any 70s star - there is no doubt it was a watered-down period for the NHL.

It's why I have Jagr well over LaFleur, for example, and I do not have Esposito where his scoring vs. peers should have him (probably a top 10 player of all-time).

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying.

the watered-down era may have made their totals more gaudy, but it didn't make Lafleur look, say, 80% better than, say, Wilf Paiement when he'd only be , say, 50% better in a less-watered-down time. I'd expect them to both come down to earth at the same rate and Lafleur would look the same percentage better in either situation.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

If you are saying Orr would have scored a certain percentage fewer points if the league didn't expand so fast, if Europe sent more players over, or if the WHA didn't take so many decent NHLers (or a combination of the three), meaning there would be many fewer poor players for him to exploit, I agree.

Where I get lost, is where this would affect Orr more than other star forwards who who were putting up huge point totals at the time. I think it's safe to say they all score about the same percentage less, and Orr's statistical dominance, on a relative level would remain unchanged.

I think you're missing the point of what I'm saying.

the watered-down era may have made their totals more gaudy, but it didn't make Lafleur look, say, 80% better than, say, Wilf Paiement when he'd only be , say, 50% better in a less-watered-down time. I'd expect them to both come down to earth at the same rate and Lafleur would look the same percentage better in either situation.

Honestly, I think that's exactly what would happen. How would you expect their statistical dominance to remain unchanged in a league with far more parity? I see what you're trying to say, everyone was playing in the same league. Not everyone was in the same situation though, and in the 70's the team you played for was probably more of a statistical factor on star player's standing out, than in any other era. Not only were some teams absolutely stacked, but they regularly played some flat out horrible teams, offensively and defensively.

Think about the +/- some of the teams had, and players on those teams. Those enormous + have to come from scoring points they likely wouldn't have against better teams. I think it stands to reason that in a league where everyone has more of a fair chance (like the current NHL) that most players would get closer to Orr statistically. Most of the other defenseman would be in a much better situation for personal stats, and Orr would likely be in a worse situation (not just the team he plays for, but more importantly who he's playing against).

Also I like that post you made one time showing how in higher scoring league's in general it's easier to stand out (percentage wise), not only do I believe that is true, but in a case like the 67-79 NHL, which had very little parity, I think it's even easier.

So basically, if the talent in the 80's had have been as unevenly distributed and lacking as in the 70's, we might have seen Gretzky dominate even more.

I think it's the same reasons we see Lemieux dominate even less, then Jagr, then Crosby & Ovechkin, etc...