Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[vulture77]

I'm thinking a change of 2% tops. There is no way two players created an era of high scoring.

I'm not sure but I think the 'created an era' -argument might have some merit in the sense that tactics of several teams probably adjust to imitate to however Stanley Cup winner plays (Flyers of the 70's, Edmonton in the 80's, NJ of the 90's, also Florida's playoff run of the same era), should the winning tactic be profilic enough.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I don't have a bias towards any era. Have you been reading exactly what I have been saying, because judging by what you're seemingly trying to tell me I'd guess not. I'm simply stating a plain fact that, in sports in general, no matter how great or dominant one is, could not jump 10+ years into there sport straight out of a time machine and still be the best player let alone be much of a factor.

Of course they could. Many would still be the best player, while others would be not quite as dominant, but every single star player would still be a factor a decade later. Ask a basketball fan if they think that Michael Jordan would not be a factor today if they pulled him out of a time machine from the mid-'90s. Ask the same question of a baseball fan about Pedro Martinez, or a football fan about Steve Young or Marshall Faulk. They'd probably all consider your questions ridiculous.

If you don't believe that, just look at the 1999 track and field championships vs. the 2009 track and field championships. There are 22 men's events (excluding race walking, because who cares about that). In 9 of those 22 events the gold medallist from 1999 would have won the gold medal in 2009 as well, and in 18 out of 22 (82%) the gold medallist in 1999 would have won at least a medal in 2009. Of the 4 exceptions, 3 of them were long distance events where the pace the runners set has a big impact on the final time.

If you drop the endurance events and look only at the strength and speed events, the events most analogous to hockey, you have only 1 out of 17 events where the results of the 1999 gold medallist would not have earned a medal in 2009. That would be the 200m, where the '99 winner would have ended up in 5th but still only .09 behind anyone not named Usain Bolt.

Athletics is pure physical skill, if your theory was right then all the 2009 times would have just crushed the 1999 times. That obviously didn't happen, which pretty much disproves the theory of hyperevolution in elite athlete physical skill. And since hockey isn't even entirely based on physical skill but on vision and awareness and hockey sense, it makes your argument even weaker IMO.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not sure but I think the 'created an era' -argument might have some merit in the sense that tactics of several teams probably adjust to imitate to however Stanley Cup winner plays (Flyers of the 70's, Edmonton in the 80's, NJ of the 90's, also Florida's playoff run of the same era), should the winning tactic be profilic enough.

maybe to a degree. but regardless of the reason, it was easier for all players across the board to pick up points, so they have to be viewed in context.

 

[vulture77]

maybe to a degree. but regardless of the reason, it was easier for all players across the board to pick up points, so they have to be viewed in context.

I think I agree. Regardless of how offensively talented team would have been in the late 90's, it probably would have been impossible to create another offensive era with lax interpretation of rules, the evolution of goaltender and his equipment, the possibilities it opened for defenders to play more waiting game and angles rather than risk being played out of position, and such.

As defenders go, I would think Lidstrom is the master of the latter. I have no doubt Lidstrom's success in the 80's or before. He would however have to play more actively to succeed then, because defender just could not trust goalie to cover the angles.

Then again, I think in modern game Potvin would have to adjust as well to play more patiently (I would guess, I have some Islanders games but I haven't seen enough to say much of his style) because now it is possible and much safer and beneficial than in his days, or perhaps be burned more often.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think I agree. Regardless of how offensively talented team would have been in the late 90's, it probably would have been impossible to create another offensive era with lax interpretation of rules, the evolution of goaltender and his equipment, the possibilities it opened for defenders to play more waiting game and angles rather than risk being played out of position, and such.

As defenders go, I would think Lidstrom is the master of the latter. I have no doubt Lidstrom's success in the 80's or before. He would however have to play more actively to succeed then, because defender just could not trust goalie to cover the angles.

Then again, I think in modern game Potvin would have to adjust as well to play more patiently (I would guess, I have some Islanders games but I haven't seen enough to say much of his style) because now it is possible and much safer and beneficial than in his days, or perhaps be burned more often.

I agree.

I made a similar post awhile back.

Red Kelly is MUCH more comparable to Lidstrom from that era. Ill try and upload an old wings game soon in my thread.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=593861

Kelly, like Lidstrom played a physically lacking, yet positionally sound game and was just a genius on the ice, stayed out of the box and was a terrific playmaker. Poor Kelly had to play many years head to head with Harvey, but had the Norris Existed before he won the first one, he would have 4 and with Harvey out of the picture 6.

Regarding Lidstrom's physicality being a weakness, I do not agree completely, depending on the context. Take this goal for example.


Lidstrom does what he does here. Takes away the angle of the shot and the goaltender SHOULD have made that save. However, Umberger had no forward help at the time and 2 other wings were back.

Ray Bourque would have taken Umberger to the boards and pinned him as he entered the zone knowing their was no forechecking help coming for Umberger and either his Defensive partner or the backcheking wing could have retrieved the puck and moved to break out.

I know it might be hard to swallow, but while that angle cutting move works well with modern goaltenders, it would NOT have worked as well in the 80's, where goaltenders still let shots from the outside in rather often with their smaller pads and stand up style.

Langway was such a great defensive defenseman in the 80's because he attacked like a wild man and had the size, strength and reach and stickwork to take on ANYONE.

In a situation where Umberger DID have forechecking help, then angling him off is generally the correct move and Bourque would have done that too, depending on the circumstances. He had all of the same defensive skills as Lidstrom plus a bit of physicality, but he would gamble more(Usually it would work) so its considered a bit of sacrifice of defense for offense, thus, Lidstrom is slightly better defensively, but slightly behind offensively.

 

[tony d]

Close but it's Lidstrom.

 

[danincanada]

I agree.

I made a similar post awhile back.

You really need to stop showing this Umberger video as evidence of anything concerning Lidstrom and how he plays defense cause it's very misleading. AGAIN, cause I've stated this to you many times, this was from a regular season game in the dog days of the season between the 1st place Red Wings and the last place Flyers in 2007. The whole Red Wings team, Lidstrom included, forgot to show up in the 3rd period of that game and got shelled 6-1. Games like this happen, even to the best of them, but you can't keep pointing to this play as evidence that Lidstrom just angles forwards off and let's the opponent take shots at his goalie.

During Lidstrom's prime the Red Wings generally give up the least shots in the league and it's not because Lidstrom allows teams free shots on his goalie. It's because they control the play with their puck possession style and Lidstrom and the defense try to not allow any shots on net. They don't give free passes for shots at their goalie because generally their goaltending is a weak spot on the team.

Even if you were right it would be a lot better to angle off players than to commit totally like Bourque does here and it doesn't matter what era we're talking about. I don't see him rubbing May or Goring into the boards and pinning them like you say and these examples were from playoff games where the Bruins got elminated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0xxSsEqjIk&feature=related

...and here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDy78Qg1BXI

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm thinking a change of 2% tops. There is no way two players created an era of high scoring.

If there was any truth to that, then as Lemieux matured while Gretzky was still winning scoring titles, scoring would have plateaued, but it started going down in 1990 when Lemieux was 24.

Actually scoring plateaued from '81-'86 and was already on it's way down down long before '90.

77/78 6.59
78/79 7.00
79/80 7.03
80/81 7.69
81/82 8.03
82/83 7.73
83/84 7.89
84/85 7.77
85/86 7.94
86/87 7.34
87/88 7.43
88/89 7.48
89/90 7.37
90/91 6.91
91/92 6.96
92/93 7.25


As far as Gretzky goes, as I have mentioned before, I do not believe even he would be capable of producing 200+ points in today's NHL.

That being said, I have absolutely no doubt what so ever that he would be putting up 160-180 points, blowing the Sid's, OV's and Sedin's out of the water.

 

[redbull]

Actually scoring plateaued from '81-'86 and was already on it's way down down long before '90.

77/78 6.59
78/79 7.00
79/80 7.03
80/81 7.69
81/82 8.03
82/83 7.73
83/84 7.89
84/85 7.77
85/86 7.94
86/87 7.34
87/88 7.43
88/89 7.48
89/90 7.37
90/91 6.91
91/92 6.96
92/93 7.25


As far as Gretzky goes, as I have mentioned before, I do not believe even he would be capable of producing 200+ points in today's NHL.

That being said, I have absolutely no doubt what so ever that he would be putting up 160-180 points, blowing the Sid's, OV's and Sedin's out of the water.

can we quantify the "gretzky effect"?

take the average total goals you have above, add two columns that would eliminate any/all games associated with the oilers from 1979 - 1987 (when gretzky was traded). Then remove all games involving LA Kings.

Although you can always skew numbers and charts, Gretzky out-produced the next best NHLers by close to 80 points on average, in his prime. That ALONE equates to a goal per game, on average.

When it comes to pure offense, I won't underestimate the impact of this SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on the game as a whole.
---
(is this related to potvin or lidstrom in any way )

 

[seventieslord]

That chart is hugely flawed because it removes Edmonton games entirely. Edmonton was a very high-powered team with or without him. They proved this in 1990. He took that team to a whole other level, obviously, but when you remove Edmonton games, you also remove Kurri, Messier, Anderson, and Coffey - all players who demonstrated their ability to put up huge points in Gretzky-less environments.

The impact of Edmonton was large. The impact of Gretzky himself was much less than half that. He's still just one player.

 

[Rhiessan71]

can we quantify the "gretzky effect"?

take the average total goals you have above, add two columns that would eliminate any/all games associated with the oilers from 1979 - 1987 (when gretzky was traded). Then remove all games involving LA Kings.

Although you can always skew numbers and charts, Gretzky out-produced the next best NHLers by close to 80 points on average, in his prime. That ALONE equates to a goal per game, on average.

When it comes to pure offense, I won't underestimate the impact of this SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on the game as a whole.
---
(is this related to potvin or lidstrom in any way )

Yes Gretzky's extra 80 points accounts for an extra goal a game...in games that he played, as far as how that affects league scoring as a whole it's just over 1% total.
So in 81/82 for example, league scoring would of averaged 7.94 goals per game instead of 8.03 and still been the highest scoring season in history heh.

As what it has to do with Lidstrom and Potvin, it was part of the whole just because players are bigger and faster today, that doesn't mean better.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

can we quantify the "gretzky effect"?

take the average total goals you have above, add two columns that would eliminate any/all games associated with the oilers from 1979 - 1987 (when gretzky was traded). Then remove all games involving LA Kings.

Although you can always skew numbers and charts, Gretzky out-produced the next best NHLers by close to 80 points on average, in his prime. That ALONE equates to a goal per game, on average.

When it comes to pure offense, I won't underestimate the impact of this SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on the game as a whole.
---
(is this related to potvin or lidstrom in any way )

Surely you weren't serious when you went ahead with this???

 

[Fredrik_71]

Its really close but I have Lidstrom at nr 5 and Potvin at nr 6 all-time. It will be a long time before anyone can take on the big 4 with Bourque as the gate keeper.

/cheers

 

[redbull]

Surely you weren't serious when you went ahead with this???

yes - the chart was meant to show how you can manipulate charts and stats to tell a story - of course it wasn't meant as a serious "gretzky effect" quantitative analysis and impact on NHL scoring. I even manipulated the scale to show a more direct relationship! Cherry-picked stats (as I posted in another thread earlier today) showing that Gretzky-led teams finished 1st in league scoring 6 straight times and 1st or 2nd 8 out of 9 times (on both LA and EDM) from '82-'90.
----

I do feel that Gretzky was the key player who defined the offensive era of scoring in the 80s. Mario carried that through the 90s, almost as impactful. These guys changed the game, along with Orr (who redefined the defensive position).

Their impacts on the game do affect how we evaluate players in those eras as well.

Was it harder to play defense in the 80s? I'd say so. Was it more difficult for Potvin to play against the Oilers in the '83 and '84 finals that it would have been for Duncan Keith this year? Sergei Gonchar last year?

It's impossible to compare eras - period.

But the impact that certain players have had on the game throughout history should not be taken lightly, especially the game-changers at the top of the elite list.

I often see past players being discounted significantly because of the "era" - coincidentally, all too-often, from people who did NOT SEE them play.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

yes - the chart was meant to show how you can manipulate charts and stats to tell a story - of course it wasn't meant as a serious "gretzky effect" quantitative analysis and impact on NHL scoring. I even manipulated the scale to show a more direct relationship!
----

I do feel that Gretzky was the key player who defined the offensive era of scoring in the 80s. Mario carried that through the 90s, almost as impactful. These guys changed the game, along with Orr (who redefined the defensive position).

Their impacts on the game do affect how we evaluate players in those eras as well.

Was it harder to play defense in the 80s? I'd say so. Was it more difficult for Potvin to play against the Oilers in the '83 and '84 finals that it would have been for Duncan Keith this year? Sergei Gonchar last year?

It's impossible to compare eras - period.

But the impact that certain players have had on the game throughout history should not be taken lightly, especially the game-changers at the top of the elite list.

I often see past players being discounted significantly because of the "era" - coincidentally, all too-often, from people who did NOT SEE them play.

I hope your not talking about me as I've already clearly established that how high scoring the league is, is irrelevant to the points he put up. It's how he compared to his peers. He compared very greatly as we all know. You just stated it's impossible to compare eras, isn't that kinda what people do here?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Of course they could. Many would still be the best player, while others would be not quite as dominant, but every single star player would still be a factor a decade later. Ask a basketball fan if they think that Michael Jordan would not be a factor today if they pulled him out of a time machine from the mid-'90s. Ask the same question of a baseball fan about Pedro Martinez, or a football fan about Steve Young or Marshall Faulk. They'd probably all consider your questions ridiculous.

If you don't believe that, just look at the 1999 track and field championships vs. the 2009 track and field championships. There are 22 men's events (excluding race walking, because who cares about that). In 9 of those 22 events the gold medallist from 1999 would have won the gold medal in 2009 as well, and in 18 out of 22 (82%) the gold medallist in 1999 would have won at least a medal in 2009. Of the 4 exceptions, 3 of them were long distance events where the pace the runners set has a big impact on the final time.

If you drop the endurance events and look only at the strength and speed events, the events most analogous to hockey, you have only 1 out of 17 events where the results of the 1999 gold medallist would not have earned a medal in 2009. That would be the 200m, where the '99 winner would have ended up in 5th but still only .09 behind anyone not named Usain Bolt.

Athletics is pure physical skill, if your theory was right then all the 2009 times would have just crushed the 1999 times. That obviously didn't happen, which pretty much disproves the theory of hyperevolution in elite athlete physical skill. And since hockey isn't even entirely based on physical skill but on vision and awareness and hockey sense, it makes your argument even weaker IMO.

Great post. Hopefully this puts the final nail in the coffin of the "hyperevolution" theory, but I doubt it.

 

[DetBigWangs]

Yes Gretzky's extra 80 points accounts for an extra goal a game...in games that he played, as far as how that affects league scoring as a whole it's just over 1% total.
So in 81/82 for example, league scoring would of averaged 7.94 goals per game instead of 8.03 and still been the highest scoring season in history heh.

As what it has to do with Lidstrom and Potvin, it was part of the whole just because players are bigger and faster today, that doesn't mean better.

Athletes get better up to a limit on human potential, but there's a time scale it works on too. I would call any modern athlete better than players from many many years back (30s, 40s, 50s) but comparing athletes from only 20 or 30 years back I would not expect as much difference. So while I think the argument of time period does matter somewhat, it's negligible for those like Potvin and Orr. I'm a little less sanguine on the abilities of the real old-timers like Harvey and Shore.

 

[canucks4ever]

Actually scoring plateaued from '81-'86 and was already on it's way down down long before '90.

77/78 6.59
78/79 7.00
79/80 7.03
80/81 7.69
81/82 8.03
82/83 7.73
83/84 7.89
84/85 7.77
85/86 7.94
86/87 7.34
87/88 7.43
88/89 7.48
89/90 7.37
90/91 6.91
91/92 6.96
92/93 7.25


As far as Gretzky goes, as I have mentioned before, I do not believe even he would be capable of producing 200+ points in today's NHL.

That being said, I have absolutely no doubt what so ever that he would be putting up 160-180 points, blowing the Sid's, OV's and Sedin's out of the water.

This is why I feel Mike Bossy is a bit overrated. His peak was basically 1981-1986, when scoring was so ridiculously high. In reality, 1982 was the only dominant season of his. The rest of his career was a bunch of 4th-6th place finishes. People act like Bossy is the 4th or 5th best offensive player of all times, but in reality he's prolly 13th or 14th all time in terms of offense. Bossy was a great player, but even if he played a full career, the most he could do is crack the top 20. He was never going to be a top 10 all timer.

 

[BraveCanadian]

This is why I feel Mike Bossy is a bit overrated. His peak was basically 1981-1986, when scoring was so ridiculously high. In reality, 1982 was the only dominant season of his. The rest of his career was a bunch of 4th-6th place finishes. People act like Bossy is the 4th or 5th best offensive player of all times, but in reality he's prolly 13th or 14th all time in terms of offense. Bossy was a great player, but even if he played a full career, the most he could do is crack the top 20. He was never going to be a top 10 all timer.

Take any all timer forward you want and have their peak be between 1981 and 1986 and they aren't going to win much individually.

Conversely put them in the place of Guy Lafleur between 75 and 78 and enjoy the trophies.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Take any all timer forward you want and have their peak be between 1981 and 1986 and they aren't going to win much individually.

Conversely put them in the place of Guy Lafleur between 75 and 78 and enjoy the trophies.

Yep, this for sure.
Many people feel that because all these players were so far behind Gretzky and Lemieux that there's no way they could possibly be as good as Sid and OV are today.
The reality is that Wayne and Mario would make Sid and OV look just as silly as those "poor" saps in the 80's and it goes without saying that neither of them would of let a very good but not great player like Sedin take an Art Ross and a Hart away from them.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Take any all timer forward you want and have their peak be between 1981 and 1986 and they aren't going to win much individually.

Conversely put them in the place of Guy Lafleur between 75 and 78 and enjoy the trophies.

Bossy was 4TH-6TH in most of those years. It's not like he would have racked up the trophies if Gretzky didn't exist.

 

[Tom Brady]

Lidstrom

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Of course they could. Many would still be the best player, while others would be not quite as dominant, but every single star player would still be a factor a decade later. Ask a basketball fan if they think that Michael Jordan would not be a factor today if they pulled him out of a time machine from the mid-'90s. Ask the same question of a baseball fan about Pedro Martinez, or a football fan about Steve Young or Marshall Faulk. They'd probably all consider your questions ridiculous.

If you don't believe that, just look at the 1999 track and field championships vs. the 2009 track and field championships. There are 22 men's events (excluding race walking, because who cares about that). In 9 of those 22 events the gold medallist from 1999 would have won the gold medal in 2009 as well, and in 18 out of 22 (82%) the gold medallist in 1999 would have won at least a medal in 2009. Of the 4 exceptions, 3 of them were long distance events where the pace the runners set has a big impact on the final time.

If you drop the endurance events and look only at the strength and speed events, the events most analogous to hockey, you have only 1 out of 17 events where the results of the 1999 gold medallist would not have earned a medal in 2009. That would be the 200m, where the '99 winner would have ended up in 5th but still only .09 behind anyone not named Usain Bolt.

Athletics is pure physical skill, if your theory was right then all the 2009 times would have just crushed the 1999 times. That obviously didn't happen, which pretty much disproves the theory of hyperevolution in elite athlete physical skill. And since hockey isn't even entirely based on physical skill but on vision and awareness and hockey sense, it makes your argument even weaker IMO.

Excellent post.

 

[redbull]

I hope your not talking about me as I've already clearly established that how high scoring the league is, is irrelevant to the points he put up. It's how he compared to his peers. He compared very greatly as we all know. You just stated it's impossible to compare eras, isn't that kinda what people do here?

not talking about you, sorry for not clarifying. I just notice the influence of regular season stats in evaluating players and their impact on the game a mess on HF. The HOH is not even the worst part of these boards (main board is).

My issue with the HOH site is how many strong opinions there are based SOLELY (or primarily) on statistics and not from personal observation.

I just prefer a disclosure of an opinion if they haven't seen the player play.
The opinion still has relevance but I strongly believe watching someone play makes a significant difference relative to stats alone.

Yes we're comparing eras, but comparing eras on stats is different than watching both players play and giving an opinion on who was better. Stats are one input on an opinion but it's a much smaller input than personal observation and team success, imo.

 

[Trottier]

Bossy was 4TH-6TH in most of those years. It's not like he would have racked up the trophies if Gretzky didn't exist.

Nevermind that he was also the top goal scorer annually on a dynastic team during that time. A perennial 50+ goal scorer. A lethal threat every shift he was on the ice.

But alas, personal stats and trophies. Without....

Context.

As in: what impact did the personal performance have?

Of course, for some, that's inconsequential. Because it's a team sport! Credit Trottier with Cups? He had Potvin! Credit Bossy? He had Trottier. Slippery meet slope.

No, it's more telling that Denis Savard outscored Bossy by three points in 1982-83. And that Dale Hawerchuk did same in 1985-85. Alrightttty.

Hey, looky here! John Ogrodnick had just three less goals than Bossy in 1984-85. See? Bossy is overrated! Denis Maruk was just four goals behind Bossy in 1981-82 (and seven points ahead of Bryan Trottier!) A-ha!

I'm just sitting back enjoying how history is being re-written around here, greats being smashed left and right.

Next up: Lincoln and Einstein were products of their eras. Neither would cut it today.