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

[Canadiens1958]

Watered-down

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.

Watered-down era(s). Understand your point specific to the era and analogy but in terms of the history of hockey the term "watered-down" is probably the most miss used and misunderstood expression of all time.

The biggest considerations have always been rule changes - prime example being the liberalization of the forward pass between the 1928-29 and 1929-30 seasons. The league was not water-downed in any sense of the phrase but the relative stats shifted dramatically. Within the framework of rule changes you also have all the related - expansion, contraction , roster sizes, on ice applications, interpretations etc. Effectively water-down is to a large degree the "game winning goal" equivalent of reasoning when describing hockey performance.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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...

Ok, so now can I use these exact same arguments against Lidstrom, only fair right.

Lets talk about parity and the difference that being on a have's or have nots makes on a players stats.
You say that Orr benefited not only from being on a strong team but also because he played against a lot of teams that were not very strong.
You also imply that the league didn't really settle down until a few years after the last expansion team came in. Sometime in the early 80's or so.
Interesting.

Hmmm ok, lets take, oh say Lidstrom's rookie year 91/92.
There were 22 teams that year, 9 years later there are 30 teams.
Damn that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 70's when Orr played. I mean, it's not 12 teams added over 10 years but it's still 8 teams added over 9 years.

Lets talk about parity now by looking at team salaries in 03/04

1. Detroit: 77.8
2. NY Rangers: 77.0
3. Dallas: 67.6
4. Philadelphia: 65.1
5. Toronto: 61.8
6. St. Louis: 61.2
7. Colorado: 60.9
8. Anaheim: 54.4
9. Washington: 51.1
10. New Jersey: 48.1
11. Los Angeles: 46.1
12. Boston: 45.8
13. NY Islanders: 43.8
14. Montreal: 42.7
15. Ottawa: 39.6
16. Vancouver: 38.7
17. Carolina: 37.8
17. Phoenix: 37.8
19. Calgary: 35.2
20. San Jose: 34.8
21. Tampa Bay: 33.5
22. Buffalo: 33.0
23. Columbus: 32.1
24. Chicago: 31.6
25. Edmonton: 30.8
26. Atlanta: 27.2
27. Minnesota: 26.8
28. Pittsburgh: 26.6
29. Florida: 26.4
30. Nashville: 23.2

I don't know about you but that list doesn't seem to be rife with parity

So would it then be safe to say that almost every single point you just came up with against Orr, could also be applied to Lidstrom?

I like this game

Gee whiz, I wonder if anyone has ever tried arguing that scoring was so high in the 80's because the talent pool was bursting at the seems and that scoring went down in the late 90's when that talent pool was diluted with expansion

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well Done

Ok, so now can I use these exact same arguments against Lidstrom, only fair right.

Lets talk about parity and the difference that being on a have's or have nots makes on a players stats.
You say that Orr benefited not only from being on a strong team but also because he played against a lot of teams that were not very strong.
You also imply that the league didn't really settle down until a few years after the last expansion team came in. Sometime in the early 80's or so.
Interesting.

Hmmm ok, lets take, oh say Lidstrom's rookie year 91/92.
There were 22 teams that year, 9 years later there are 30 teams.
Damn that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 70's when Orr played. I mean, it's not 12 teams added over 10 years but it's still 8 teams added over 9 years.

Lets talk about parity now by looking at team salaries in 03/04

1. Detroit: 77.8
2. NY Rangers: 77.0
3. Dallas: 67.6
4. Philadelphia: 65.1
5. Toronto: 61.8
6. St. Louis: 61.2
7. Colorado: 60.9
8. Anaheim: 54.4
9. Washington: 51.1
10. New Jersey: 48.1
11. Los Angeles: 46.1
12. Boston: 45.8
13. NY Islanders: 43.8
14. Montreal: 42.7
15. Ottawa: 39.6
16. Vancouver: 38.7
17. Carolina: 37.8
17. Phoenix: 37.8
19. Calgary: 35.2
20. San Jose: 34.8
21. Tampa Bay: 33.5
22. Buffalo: 33.0
23. Columbus: 32.1
24. Chicago: 31.6
25. Edmonton: 30.8
26. Atlanta: 27.2
27. Minnesota: 26.8
28. Pittsburgh: 26.6
29. Florida: 26.4
30. Nashville: 23.2

I don't know about you but that list doesn't seem to be rife with parity

So would it then be safe to say that almost every single point you just came up with against Orr, could also be applied to Lidstrom?

I like this game

Gee whiz, I wonder if anyone has ever tried arguing that scoring was so high in the 80's because the talent pool was bursting at the seems and that scoring went down in the late 90's when that talent pool was diluted with expansion

Very well done and argued.

Simplification abounds. Catch phrases rule. The "Dead Puck Era" nice headlines or sound bites that are vapid.

 

[danincanada]

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

Bowman mentions Orr as being in the group of the greatest of all-time in an interview from early 2008 but goes on to say he thinks Howe is the greatest all-time and cites his great longevity. Then 3 years later Bowman says he wouldn't rank any defenseman ahead of Lidstrom all-time (this obviously includes Orr) because of his great play and longevity. You be the judge. I know I didn't hear a fat lady singing.

Bowman probably likes longevity, and possibly career value, because that player has then proven he can play across different eras. Unfortunately Orr never really did that.

 

[danincanada]

There is an interesting thread - 1992-93 Pro Scout Ratings:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=939301

Previously it was stated that Nicklas Lidstrom was drafted in the 3rd round. Combined the draft position and the 1992-93 Pro Scout ratings - Lidstrom received a grade of 18 in the Felix Potvin, Gilbert Dionne range, evoked cries of bias against European dmen, scouts not knowing what they are doing, etc.

Well there are reasons why none of the players were first round picks when drafted and were rated in the 17-19 range during the 1992-93 ratings. There games were lacking certain elements.

Even the weaker scouts, amateur or pro, can spot whether a defenseman can hit at the NHL level. The issue is not does he hit at the junior level or entering the pros, rather whether his appreciation of the on ice geometry and angles is sufficient to eventually incorporate hitting at the NHL level. Simply in Lidstrom's case the effective hitting aspect of the game was not going to materialize. The various scouts recognized it early and the few times that Lidstrom has tried to hit or play a physical game have simply confirmed the initial view. That Nickles Lidstrom recognized that hitting was not going to be an integral part of his game is a tribute to him as is the great success he has had without hitting. On the other hand the choice Lidstrom made to rarely hit has to be recognized for the reasons why the choice was made.

These scouts gave Hasek a score of 15 in this same ranking. He was 5 years older than Lidstrom and went on to win his first Vezina the following year. We all know what Hasek did after that. I'm sure the scouts all remember those weaknesses they saw in his game, just like Lidstrom's lack of hitting ability (according to you).

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bowman mentions Orr as being in the group of the greatest of all-time in an interview from early 2008 but goes on to say he thinks Howe is the greatest all-time and cites his great longevity. Then 3 years later Bowman says he wouldn't rank any defenseman ahead of Lidstrom all-time (this obviously includes Orr) because of his great play and longevity. You be the judge. I know I didn't hear a fat lady singing.

Bowman probably likes longevity, and possibly career value, because that player has then proven he can play across different eras. Unfortunately Orr never really did that.

Yeaaaahhhhh.....listen....I think I'm going to have to ask you to move your desk again....opps sorry, must of gotten caught in some kind of repeating loop there.

Anywho...in other interviews Bowman can barely pick between Lids and Harvey. He always says they are neck and neck, so close.
When ever he talks about Orr however, it's always in the context of the best PLAYER'S ever.

See, I don't know about you but if I had a choice of which conversation and group of players I would rather be included in....Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe or Lidstrom and Harvey....hmmm tough one

We'll just have to agree to disagree here until someone actually nails Bowman down point blank on Orr, Lidstrom and Harvey.

I believe I have your stapler btw.

 

[Rhiessan71]

These scouts gave Hasek a score of 15 in this same ranking. He was 5 years older than Lidstrom and went on to win his first Vezina the following year. We all know what Hasek did after that. I'm sure the scouts all remember those weaknesses they saw in his game, just like Lidstrom's lack of hitting ability (according to you).

Dude, at least use an example of someone that the scouts had a hope in hell of evaluating properly. Scouts are far from perfect but c'mon, gotta give them a chance at least.
Using Hasek is ridiculous. 15 years later and we're still trying to figure out exactly how he did what he did.

 

[danincanada]

Yeaaaahhhhh.....listen....I think I'm going to have to ask you to move your desk again....opps sorry, must of gotten caught in some kind of repeating loop there.

Anywho...in other interviews Bowman can barely pick between Lids and Harvey. He always says they are neck and neck, so close.
When ever he talks about Orr however, it's always in the context of the best PLAYER'S ever.

See, I don't know about you but if I had a choice of which conversation and group of players I would rather be included in....Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe or Lidstrom and Harvey....hmmm tough one

We'll just have to agree to disagree here until someone actually nails Bowman down point blank on Orr, Lidstrom and Harvey.

I believe I have your stapler btw.

In the interview I'm referring to from 2011 they were not just asking Bowman about Lidstrom vs. Harvey. It was regarding the all-time great defenseman. He clearly said he wouldn't put anyone ahead of Lidstrom. That included Orr, sorry.

 

[danincanada]

Dude, at least use an example of someone that the scouts had a hope in hell of evaluating properly. Scouts are far from perfect but c'mon, gotta give them a chance at least.
Using Hasek is ridiculous. 15 years later and we're still trying to figure out exactly how he did what he did.

Dom stopped the puck, that's all that matters.

Nick stopped the opposition, that's all that matters too.

Some people on this board still don't seem to understand how Lidstrom did it either.

 

[Rhiessan71]

In the interview I'm referring to from 2011 they were not just asking Bowman about Lidstrom vs. Harvey. It was regarding the all-time great defenseman. He clearly said he wouldn't put anyone ahead of Lidstrom. That included Orr, sorry.

Yep, I definitely have your stapler.

Dom stopped the puck, that's all that matters.

Nick stopped the opposition, that's all that matters too.

Some people on this board still don't seem to understand how Lidstrom did it either.

The actual point was that no one could of predicted that Hasek would do what he did. He was so unorthodox, there was no way of evaluating him.

As far as scouts go, they are notorious for undervaluing players that aren't physical, nothing new there.

Most people completely understand how Lidstrom did what he did, he took the pages right out of the book Harvey wrote 50 years ago after all.
Oh yeah, he had a pretty damned good team around him too and got to play against a lot of expansion teams.

 

[danincanada]

Yep, I definitely have your stapler.

You're ignoring that Bowman didn't name Orr the top defenseman in 2011. He wouldn't name one but said what he said about Lidstrom. Just keep ignoring that if it makes you feel better.

The actual point was that no one could of predicted that Hasek would do what he did. He was so unorthodox, there was no way of evaluating him.

As far as scouts go, they are notorious for undervaluing players that aren't physical, nothing new there.

Most people completely understand how Lidstrom did what he did, he took the pages right out of the book Harvey wrote 50 years ago after all.
Oh yeah, he had a pretty damned good team around him too and got to play against a lot of expansion teams.

So what are you arguing? They underrated both; Hasek for being an unorthodox goalie and Lidstrom for being a non-physical defenseman. That was my point. Another poster claimed this was a sign that Lidstrom had a flaw in his game, which is laughable at best when we look back now.

Lidstrom didn't play in a league that was almost void of non-Canadians with half of its teams being recent expansion teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is anyone surprised Bowman is blowing smoke up the ass of the player he actually coached for a significant period of time?

Bowman isn't exactly an objective source here.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Ok, so now can I use these exact same arguments against Lidstrom, only fair right.

Lets talk about parity and the difference that being on a have's or have nots makes on a players stats.
You say that Orr benefited not only from being on a strong team but also because he played against a lot of teams that were not very strong.
You also imply that the league didn't really settle down until a few years after the last expansion team came in. Sometime in the early 80's or so.
Interesting.

Hmmm ok, lets take, oh say Lidstrom's rookie year 91/92.
There were 22 teams that year, 9 years later there are 30 teams.
Damn that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 70's when Orr played. I mean, it's not 12 teams added over 10 years but it's still 8 teams added over 9 years.

Lets talk about parity now by looking at team salaries in 03/04

1. Detroit: 77.8
2. NY Rangers: 77.0
3. Dallas: 67.6
4. Philadelphia: 65.1
5. Toronto: 61.8
6. St. Louis: 61.2
7. Colorado: 60.9
8. Anaheim: 54.4
9. Washington: 51.1
10. New Jersey: 48.1
11. Los Angeles: 46.1
12. Boston: 45.8
13. NY Islanders: 43.8
14. Montreal: 42.7
15. Ottawa: 39.6
16. Vancouver: 38.7
17. Carolina: 37.8
17. Phoenix: 37.8
19. Calgary: 35.2
20. San Jose: 34.8
21. Tampa Bay: 33.5
22. Buffalo: 33.0
23. Columbus: 32.1
24. Chicago: 31.6
25. Edmonton: 30.8
26. Atlanta: 27.2
27. Minnesota: 26.8
28. Pittsburgh: 26.6
29. Florida: 26.4
30. Nashville: 23.2

I don't know about you but that list doesn't seem to be rife with parity

So would it then be safe to say that almost every single point you just came up with against Orr, could also be applied to Lidstrom?

I like this game

Gee whiz, I wonder if anyone has ever tried arguing that scoring was so high in the 80's because the talent pool was bursting at the seems and that scoring went down in the late 90's when that talent pool was diluted with expansion

Not comparable - the league tripled in size in size from 1968-75, so it is more like going from 22 teams to 66 by 1999. Oh, and a competing N. American league thrown in to boot.

You really think the league was as deep in the 70s as it was in the 90s? I forgot, you also had few Euros in the 70s as well.

Red Wings were a top team and spend at the top - the year you brought up was their highest payroll ever, largely b/c Detroit had $16m in two goalies that only played 45 games between the two of them. Cujo played in the AHL that year until Hasek was injured. Legace was the backup and actually got the bulk of the starts. That was never a $78m team on the ice.

Boston, however, was leaps and bounds better than the Wings, as compared to the rest of the league. They scored 100 more goals than the next team in the league for goodness sakes. 200 more than the bottom teams. 7 out of the Top 10 scorers in the league played for Boston in 1972. The Wings are lucky if they have one player in the Top 10.

 

[danincanada]

Is anyone surprised Bowman is blowing smoke up the ass of the player he actually coached for a significant period of time?

Bowman isn't exactly an objective source here.

Possibly but Bowman also has first hand knowledge of the changes that occurred in the NHL between now and the late 60's. He's made it very clear in every interview that he doesn't like to compare players from different eras. Why would that be?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Not comparable - the league tripled in size in size from 1968-75, so it is more like going from 22 teams to 66 by 1999. Oh, and a competing N. American league thrown in to boot.

Damned straight it's comparable. You can argue the degree with which both players benefited from expansion all you want but at the end of the day they BOTH still benefited!

You really think the league was as deep in the 70s as it was in the 90s? I forgot, you also had few Euros in the 70s as well.

Again, argue the degree all you want but BOTH were periods of rapid expansion.

Red Wings were a top team and spend at the top - the year you brought up was their highest payroll ever, largely b/c Detroit had $16m in two goalies that only played 45 games between the two of them. Cujo played in the AHL that year until Hasek was injured. Legace was the backup and actually got the bulk of the starts. That was never a $78m team on the ice.

Boston, however, was leaps and bounds better than the Wings, as compared to the rest of the league. They scored 100 more goals than the next team in the league for goodness sakes. 200 more than the bottom teams. 7 out of the Top 10 scorers in the league played for Boston in 1972. The Wings are lucky if they have one player in the Top 10.

Is that right now? Hmmm...funny, that only happened in 1 year and they didn't even win the Cup that year. The rest of the time, the B's were no where near that same level of dominance over the rest of the league.

So is this where I get to pick out a single dominant year like the 95/96 Wings and repeat everything you just used against Orr point for point?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Not comparable - the league tripled in size in size from 1968-75, so it is more like going from 22 teams to 66 by 1999. Oh, and a competing N. American league thrown in to boot.

Damned straight it's comparable. You can argue the degree with which both players benefited from expansion all you want but at the end of the day they BOTH still benefited!

You really think the league was as deep in the 70s as it was in the 90s? I forgot, you also had few Euros in the 70s as well.

Again, argue the degree all you want but BOTH were periods of rapid expansion.

Red Wings were a top team and spend at the top - the year you brought up was their highest payroll ever, largely b/c Detroit had $16m in two goalies that only played 45 games between the two of them. Cujo played in the AHL that year until Hasek was injured. Legace was the backup and actually got the bulk of the starts. That was never a $78m team on the ice.

Boston, however, was leaps and bounds better than the Wings, as compared to the rest of the league. They scored 100 more goals than the next team in the league for goodness sakes. 200 more than the bottom teams. 7 out of the Top 10 scorers in the league played for Boston in 1972. The Wings are lucky if they have one player in the Top 10.

Is that right now? Hmmm...funny, that only happened in 1 year and they didn't even win the Cup that year. The rest of the time, the B's were no where near that same level of dominance over the rest of the league.

So is this where I get to pick out a single dominant year like the 95/96 Wings and repeat everything you just used against Orr point for point AGAIN?

 

[Epsilon]

Is anyone surprised Bowman is blowing smoke up the ass of the player he actually coached for a significant period of time?

Bowman isn't exactly an objective source here.

While this is most definitely true, there's not many "objective sources" out there, if any at all. A lot of people (not saying you do this, mind you, just making a general point) will use quotes and interviews from "Legends of Hockey" and other similar sources where great players of the 50s, 60s, and 70s wax eloquently and fondly about other players of the same era, and one could hardly consider these objective sources. I do think it is instructive to name some of the hockey insiders who have listed Lidstrom as in the discussion for the best of all-time (or at least best after Orr): Scotty Bowman, Chris Pronger, Bob McKenzie, Jimmy Devellano, and Pierre McGuire all come to mind. Yeah, each of those guys probably has bias in some form or another, some more than others. But so does every other person connected to the game, when they talk about some other player.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Ok, so now can I use these exact same arguments against Lidstrom, only fair right.

Lets talk about parity and the difference that being on a have's or have nots makes on a players stats.
You say that Orr benefited not only from being on a strong team but also because he played against a lot of teams that were not very strong.
You also imply that the league didn't really settle down until a few years after the last expansion team came in. Sometime in the early 80's or so.
Interesting.

Hmmm ok, lets take, oh say Lidstrom's rookie year 91/92.
There were 22 teams that year, 9 years later there are 30 teams.
Damn that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 70's when Orr played. I mean, it's not 12 teams added over 10 years but it's still 8 teams added over 9 years.

Lets talk about parity now by looking at team salaries in 03/04

1. Detroit: 77.8
2. NY Rangers: 77.0
3. Dallas: 67.6
4. Philadelphia: 65.1
5. Toronto: 61.8
6. St. Louis: 61.2
7. Colorado: 60.9
8. Anaheim: 54.4
9. Washington: 51.1
10. New Jersey: 48.1
11. Los Angeles: 46.1
12. Boston: 45.8
13. NY Islanders: 43.8
14. Montreal: 42.7
15. Ottawa: 39.6
16. Vancouver: 38.7
17. Carolina: 37.8
17. Phoenix: 37.8
19. Calgary: 35.2
20. San Jose: 34.8
21. Tampa Bay: 33.5
22. Buffalo: 33.0
23. Columbus: 32.1
24. Chicago: 31.6
25. Edmonton: 30.8
26. Atlanta: 27.2
27. Minnesota: 26.8
28. Pittsburgh: 26.6
29. Florida: 26.4
30. Nashville: 23.2

I don't know about you but that list doesn't seem to be rife with parity

So would it then be safe to say that almost every single point you just came up with against Orr, could also be applied to Lidstrom?

I like this game

Gee whiz, I wonder if anyone has ever tried arguing that scoring was so high in the 80's because the talent pool was bursting at the seems and that scoring went down in the late 90's when that talent pool was diluted with expansion

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the NHL in the 90's was no where close to as diluted as the NHL in the 1970's. If you can't understand this by now, you are obviously choosing not to.

You're using the salary cap as a point in your favour? How about some actual team rosters... compared to the ones from the 70's. You'd probably best spare yourself the trouble though.

Why do you think the best +/- happened in the 70's? The answer in not that complicated.

Fact is, the difference in overall skill on most players teams in the seventies is just too far apart to draw any fair comparisons when it comes to stats for that era.

I would love for someone to explain to me how Orr would have dominated the same way if the league never expanded, or if he was the one playing on the worst expansion team.

 

[Up the Irons]

I never saw Harvey. I think (think) Lidstrom is probably better because he won 7 norris' in a league with over 200 defensemen, while Harvey won his in a league with less than 30.

BTW, i did see Bourque, Potvin, Robinson, Coffee, Fetisov. Sorry, Lidstrom is definitely better than all of them.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but the NHL in the 90's was no where close to as diluted as the NHL in the 1970's. If you can't understand this by now, you are obviously choosing not to.

You're using the salary cap as a point in your favour? How about some actual team rosters... compared to the ones from the 70's. You'd probably best spare yourself the trouble though.

Why do you think the best +/- happened in the 70's? The answer in not that complicated.

Fact is, the difference in overall skill on most players teams in the seventies is just too far apart to draw any fair comparisons when it comes to stats for that era.

Again, you're just talking about degrees here. Maybe the expansion in the early-mid 70's did dilute the league more than expansion diluted the league in the mid-late 90's.
The fact still remains that the league was STILL diluted in both time periods.

I'm not using the salary cap as a point in my favour, I'm simply pointing out that neither Orr or Lidstrom played the majority of their careers in a league that was high on parity.
Again, both Orr and Lidstrom benefited from being on really strong teams and from playing a lot of expansion teams, the degree may or may not be the same but it's still a fact for both.
Bourque by comparison to Lidstrom didn't have the benefit from playing on strong teams or from playing a plethora of expansion teams.
Should also be noted that those B's teams from the 70's were no where close to being as dominant when Orr didn't play. No where is that proven more soundly than in the Adjusted +/- thread (http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548&highlight=adjusted++&page=4) where out of every member of those teams, Orr is the only one that has an R-off number even remotely close to 1:1.

I would love for someone to explain to me how Orr would have dominated the same way if the league never expanded, or if he was the one playing on the worst expansion team.

Ditto for Lidstrom my friend, ditto.

I love how some people can call me blind yet fail to realise that almost every argument that people use to promote Lidstrom over Orr can then be used to one degree or another to promote Bourque over Lidstrom.
So in essence, Lidstrom supporters are actually making Bourque's case stronger by attacking Orr.
Kinda funny actually
What's even funnier though, is that the ole Lidstrom bread and butter argument of longevity doesn't work vs Bourque lol (Yes I am actually laughing out loud here)

Orr played on strong teams...so did Lidstrom...Bourque didn't.
Orr played a lot of expansion teams...so did Lidstrom...Bourque didn't.
On and on we go folks but by all means please continue

 

[seventieslord]

Watered-down era(s). Understand your point specific to the era and analogy but in terms of the history of hockey the term "watered-down" is probably the most miss used and misunderstood expression of all time.

The biggest considerations have always been rule changes - prime example being the liberalization of the forward pass between the 1928-29 and 1929-30 seasons. The league was not water-downed in any sense of the phrase but the relative stats shifted dramatically. Within the framework of rule changes you also have all the related - expansion, contraction , roster sizes, on ice applications, interpretations etc. Effectively water-down is to a large degree the "game winning goal" equivalent of reasoning when describing hockey performance.

You like to call the O6 era the toughest to break into, and you are right, so I have no idea why you wouldn't call the NHL in the 1970s watered down. The number of top-level pro roster spots just multiplied by 5 in the matter of a decade. While I am sure that population and increased participation contributed to a slightly stronger talent pool in those years, there is no way that it came close to matching the increase in jobs available.

In 1967, roughly 120 Canadian players ere NHL regulars. In 1977, that number had more than quadrupled including the WHA. While I am sure the 120th-best Canadian player in 1977 was better than his 1967 counterpart (and same with the 500ths), there is no logic that can lead anyone to believe that the 500th-best in 1977 was anywhere near the 120th in 1967. Ergo, the worst players in the NHL circa 1977 were much worse than their 1967 counterparts. It was easier for star players to exploit these terrible players, and that's what happened.

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...

You're talking about parity, I'm talking about talent pool vs. league size and how it drives the competition level. Two different things.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Is anyone surprised Bowman is blowing smoke up the ass of the player he actually coached for a significant period of time?

Bowman isn't exactly an objective source here.

Please look at a few names that played for Bowman and he picked Lidstrom:

Murphy x2
Chelios
Coffey x2
Fetisov
Konstantinov
Robinson
Savard
Lapointe
Langway
Ramsey
Housley
Harvey

Just to name a few.

 

[danincanada]

I love how some people can call me blind yet fail to realise that almost every argument that people use to promote Lidstrom over Orr can then be used to one degree or another to promote Bourque over Lidstrom.
So in essence, Lidstrom supporters are actually making Bourque's case stronger by attacking Orr.
Kinda funny actually
What's even funnier though, is that the ole Lidstrom bread and butter argument of longevity doesn't work vs Bourque lol (Yes I am actually laughing out loud here)

Orr played on strong teams...so did Lidstrom...Bourque didn't.
Orr played a lot of expansion teams...so did Lidstrom...Bourque didn't.
On and on we go folks but by all means please continue

In Bourque's first year in the league there were 4 new teams added from the WHA and the NHL hasn't expanded since Ray retired in 2001 so I don't know how you're coming up with this. There was loads of expansion during Bourque's career.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

You like to call the O6 era the toughest to break into, and you are right, so I have no idea why you wouldn't call the NHL in the 1970s watered down. The number of top-level pro roster spots just multiplied by 5 in the matter of a decade. While I am sure that population and increased participation contributed to a slightly stronger talent pool in those years, there is no way that it came close to matching the increase in jobs available.

In 1967, roughly 120 Canadian players ere NHL regulars. In 1977, that number had more than quadrupled including the WHA. While I am sure the 120th-best Canadian player in 1977 was better than his 1967 counterpart (and same with the 500ths), there is no logic that can lead anyone to believe that the 500th-best in 1977 was anywhere near the 120th in 1967. Ergo, the worst players in the NHL circa 1977 were much worse than their 1967 counterparts. It was easier for star players to exploit these terrible players, and that's what happened.



You're talking about parity, I'm talking about talent pool vs. league size and how it drives the competition level. Two different things.

Comparables. The ability of star players to exploit "terrible" players.

Let's look at hockey from an overall historical perspective first. 1928-29 season vs 1929-30 season. 10 NHL teams vs 10 NHL teams yet despite roster stability that was typical for the era scoring went up indicating that goalies and players were easier to exploit. Did the a group of players and goalies become terrible or see skills diminish? No.

By the 1938-39 season the NHL was down to 7 teams, a drop of 30% from the 1928-29 or 1929-30 season. So the 1928-29 or 1929-30 seasons should be considered watered down with the bottom 30% of the players viewed as terrible? Were Canada and the USA suddenly producing fewer or less competent players? No.Simply function of hockey economics.

Pre 1966-67 expansion.Three seasons Prior to expansion the two goalie system was introduced to the NHL. Effectively 6 minor league goalies became NHL goalies due to a rule change but were they "terrible". No. The TG/G fluctuated season +/- within the 5.5 to 6.10 range as it had done before the introduction of the two goalie system.

Post expansion. Minor league players are perceived as entering the NHL and bringing their terrible brand of hockey to the NHL.1966-67 Minor leagues saw players like Doug Harvey and Andy Bathgate play in the AHL, combined ~2000 games NHL experience. Finding 1966-67 minor leaguers with over 70 games NHL experience is not difficult.The level of hockey in the minors and junior hockey at the time - 1966-67 was at the other extreme of terrible. Issue was that there were very few NHL qualified arenas beyond the NHL used buildings. The talent for a much larger(12-18 teams) NHL had been sufficient for at least 10 seasons but North America lacked facilities.

As illustrated above "watered-down" is far from accurate when describing the NHL expansion product.

 

[pappyline]

Please look at a few names that played for Bowman and he picked Lidstrom:

Murphy x2
Chelios
Coffey x2
Fetisov
Konstantinov
Robinson
Savard
Lapointe
Langway
Ramsey
Housley
Harvey

Just to name a few.

Actually he didn't pick Lidstrom over anybody. This is what he said:

"I will say I don't rate anyone AHEAD of Lidstrom"

So maybe he ranks all these players on the same level.

Seriously Lidstrom ranks ahead of all these guys except Harvey. You are banking your whole premise of Lidstrom being #1 all time based on this Bowman comment. For sure the vast majority of knowledgeable hockey people have Orr as easily #1 with Lidstrom, harvey & Shore fighting it out for # 2.