Never got to watch Potvin, but based on stats, dynastys lead, and Stories I've heard about the type of player Potvin was, I would take him, although Lidstrom is no slouch.
Lidstrom Vs. Potvin
- Thread starter markrander87
- Start date
Are their actually morons comparing Ilya "1 PO Win" Kovalchuk to Mike "Mother****ing" Bossy or do I need my eyes checked?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
To borrow from Animal House, War is over. The one board on HF that was (thankfully) for years dominated by astute long-time hockey fans is now being invaded by the "Children of the Stat".
Best to just sit back, engage judiciously and otherwise enjoy the folly. Who would have known that it would take more than 20 years later to be "informed" that those we had the privilege of watching were not that special after all.
Or you can accept that hockey has changed over the years, and that a certain number of goals 30 years ago is as impressive or as valuable as a different number of goals today.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
A pretty ballsy comment, especially coming from just a 20 year old, third-year dman....
....by the name of Scott Stevens.
True story.
Great story!
---
Tell me more about this 'stevens' player. I didn't see his name in any list? How would he score if he had a flexistick against these giant goalies in today's game?
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
Checkyoureyes.com/kovy17
Very well put and I appreciate the disclosure that you never saw him play. Huge difference.
Years from now, Scott Niedermayer's stats will look very unimpressive compared to Mike Green. Some may argue who was better.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Not the same thing. Scoring is not the primary function of a defenseman, and even if it was, Niedermayer spent years in the dead puck era on a team that stifled his creativity.
revolverjgw
Registered User
I do suggest you get your eyes checked. One, nobody said Kovalchuk is as good or better than Bossy, and two, nobody compared their team success or playoff wins, comparisons were limited strictly to their regular season goal scoring.
I mean, saying something like "X amount of Y goal seasons" doesn't prove anything. Gordie Howe topped out at 3 straight 40 goal seasons, Kovalchuk is working on his 7th... is Kovalchuk a better scorer? Is Dany Heatley? Of course not.
And I agree with Infinite Vision, Kovalchuk is quite close to being a modern-day Bossy in terms of consistent goal scoring greatness from season to season, regardless of what the raw numbers say. Those adjusted stats are very close to what I'd expect to see if they both played in the same league considering Kovalchuk and Bossy's respective performance amongst their peers. Kovy has a scoring title and multiple top 2-3 finishes, is always in the top handful... maybe not as many top 2-3 finishes as Bossy, but consider that he has to compete with Russians like Ovechkin and Malkin and all the other elite Euros... Jagr, Hejduk, Naslund, Gaborik, Hossa and Selanne, etc, have all had elite goal scoring seasons. In Bossy's era, Kurri was the only Euro even remotely capable of keeping up with the top goal scorers from year to year.
I'm not saying he's as good as Bossy, but when you look beyond the raw numbers and examine the context, Kovalchuk's run is much closer to Bossy's than some would want to admit. He's been incredibly great and consistent and if there were 7-8 goals a game, you'd be looking at a guy that would put up very Bossy-esque goal totals.
(hopefully now that he's on a good team he can start doing it in the post-season... he WAS the Devil's best player last year, so cut him some slack there)
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
replace mike green with sandis ozolinch or matt schneider or phil housley - they all average more points per game than scott niedermayer over the same era.
i'd say that niedermayer is in another stratosphere compared to those three "good" players.
if you hadn't seen them all play, the numbers would tell a very different story though.
lidstrom scores less than macinnis or leetch, tied with zubov in pts/game over that span and i'd say lidstrom was much better than that crew.
---
i think there's a difference between finding "the stat" to support your argument versus discussing who the best player is based on play alone, then seeing if the stats show anything meaningfully different.
but as i've stated before, the key measures are not at all captured in the regular season scoring.
it's in team success with key defining moments when a "big goal" or "big save" or "huge defensive play" led to a series win, a cup win, a gold medal. those SITUATIONAL moments are what makes history and legends and differentiates the accomplishments of lidstrom over housley, bossy over blaine stoughton, niedermayer over ozolinsh, etc.
this is lost in the data but clear as day in watching the players and the games.
Last edited:
Trottier
Very Random
I'll accept the wisdom of those who preach with amusing authority about players they never saw, the moment you start accepting the wisdom of today's players from a five month old. Translation: tell me something more than "The adjusted numbers PROVE he's no better than Kovy in today's NHL. (And AO is King!)".
I do not begrudge anyone a strong reliance on adjusted stats. No need to deny me the opinion that they mean **** in the overall scheme of things when discussing the brilliance of Mike Bossy, or any all-time great.
I offered my previous post with no malice. Telling, however, that one takes such offense to it.
And imagine - no stats, adjusted or otherwise!
Tell me more about this 'stevens' player. I didn't see his name in any list? How would he score if he had a flexistick against these giant goalies in today's game?
Well he played the bulk of his career in the 1980s and 1990, when goalies sucked and anyone could score. Adjusted for time travel and Nuuu NHL bias, he was actually playing in the 1880s.
Last edited:
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
back to context....compare how kovalchuk has been unable to elevate the play of his teammates and/or linemates. he's been called "hollow" by some, he's been labeled a selfish player who cares about goals more than wins.
how much does that matter to someone who's evaluating the player or comparing him to a player who was able to score goals while making those around him better, while winning championships.
i think there's an important distinction between "competing against elite euros" vs. competing against other teams and goalies.
if bossy only cared about goals, he wouldn't be able to play for al arbour. the islanders wouldn't win any cups. bossy would score a few dozen more goals per year and the team would fail.
you cannot ignore team success in the discussion. that's the biggest context that is often ignored. that's the goal of each individual game and each successful season. that matters far more than goals in isolation.
i like kovalchuk a great deal. he's a great player, among the best goal scorers of his era, no doubt. but he has MUCH to prove before he's involved in any discussion with bossy.
you cannot reduce the accomplishments of legends by throwing regular season stats.
bossy has better numbers than lafleur, but few would say bossy was the better player.
Last edited:
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 16,471
- 5,849
I feel that this question is generally unfair towards Lidstrom. Any sports fan could watch Potvin play and tell he was a great player. He was skilled, tough, well-rounded. Lidstrom's dominance is more subtle; he doesn't catch your eye at first. He does the little things so perfectly, that he becomes dominant. Only a more expert fan taking a step back can appreciate what Lidstrom does, IMO.
It is a little like the Lemieux vs. Gretzky debate. Lemieux was the more talented one in its accepted definition, but Gretzky's production was inarguabley superior.
I lean towards Potvin, a dominant player on a dominant dynasty. I acknowledge that like other players of his time, he faded a bit in his mid-30s (he retired while his play was at a high level because he had lost some of the passion he had for the game, but I think even if he had continued playing his body couldn't have supported his style of play), while Lidstrom is the freak of any time period of hockey's history with excellent hockey play into his 40s, but I'd prefer Potvin just slightly...
It is a little like the Lemieux vs. Gretzky debate. Lemieux was the more talented one in its accepted definition, but Gretzky's production was inarguabley superior.
I lean towards Potvin, a dominant player on a dominant dynasty. I acknowledge that like other players of his time, he faded a bit in his mid-30s (he retired while his play was at a high level because he had lost some of the passion he had for the game, but I think even if he had continued playing his body couldn't have supported his style of play), while Lidstrom is the freak of any time period of hockey's history with excellent hockey play into his 40s, but I'd prefer Potvin just slightly...
Thank you.
I feel sorry for those who took offense to the Kovalchuk vs. Bossy comparison. For one, I never said anything close to this proves Kovalchuk is as good or better than Bossy or whatever. If you don't think it's atleast close between them... you quite clearly are strongly biased towards older players. That's all.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Comparables
Throw Mike Gartner, Dino Ciccarelli, Pat Verbeek and Dany Heatley into the discussion mix and Ilya Kovalchuk starts to drift downwards away from Bossy especially when contribution is considered.
Regardless of the era talent without the corresponding individual and team results will never equal talent with corresponding individual and team results.
Throw Mike Gartner, Dino Ciccarelli, Pat Verbeek and Dany Heatley into the discussion mix and Ilya Kovalchuk starts to drift downwards away from Bossy especially when contribution is considered.
Regardless of the era talent without the corresponding individual and team results will never equal talent with corresponding individual and team results.
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 30,660
- 15,862
This brings us right back to the luck argument that derailed this thread for a while.
Swap out Bossy for Kovalchuk, and IMO the team successes, or lack thereof, for the 80s Islanders and the 00s Thrashers don't change one bit.
Dissonance
Registered User
To borrow from Animal House, War is over. The one board on HF that was (thankfully) for years dominated by astute long-time hockey fans is now being invaded by the "Children of the Stat".
Best to just sit back, engage judiciously and otherwise enjoy the folly. Who would have known that it would take more than 20 years later to be "informed" that those we had the privilege of watching were not that special after all.
I agree with a lot of your posts, but some of this get-off-my-lawn-kids stuff is unfair. I watched both Bossy and Kovalchuk and there's no doubt in my mind who's better, but I've learned a lot from the stat people on this board, just like I've learned a lot from the people here who've seen players I didn't get to see. Complaining about a few stat posts in isolation misses the fact that a lot of good insights can come out of the back-and-forths they provoke.
I do think Kovalchuk tends to get underrated historically just because his dead-puck-era goal totals don't look quite as gaudy as some of the scorers from the '80s. Adjusted stats can fill in that picture—what Kovalchuk's done over the past decade is clearly HOF-worthy, in my opinion. But, yes, there's a lot they can't show, like the fact that Bossy was more impressive for being able to put up ridiculous numbers while still fitting in perfectly on a team that put a heavy emphasis on defense. Kovalchuk hasn't (yet) shown he can do that, although in fairness he hasn't had a lot of chances.
I've always believed that if Bossy had been stuck on crappy teams playing wide-open pond hockey he probably could've hit 70 or 80 or more. But he didn't, he bought into what Al Arbour was doing from day one, and he has four cups to show for it. Not a bad trade-off.
Epsilon
#basta
From some of the (over)reactions in this thread, you'd think that the statements
"Kovalchuk and Bossy are on a similar level as goal-scorers"
and
"Kovalchuk and Bossy are on a similar level as players"
were the same thing, when they clearly are not.
"Kovalchuk and Bossy are on a similar level as goal-scorers"
and
"Kovalchuk and Bossy are on a similar level as players"
were the same thing, when they clearly are not.
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
If I misunderstood your stance on Kovy/Bossy I apologize. When you present side-by-side comparisons with scoring data there's a strong implication that they are "close" as players. While, statistically, you can make a point that numbers and trends are comparable - but the danger is you create an illusion that the players are somehow close. If you make the point that regular season scoring statistics represents a SMALL PART of what makes a great hockey player and a great goal scorer then it doesn't appear like a "Kovy is as good as Bossy position"
And I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bias towards older players. Far from it. You can't assume that "Bossy" represents "older players" per se, even though he, technically, is in that group. Not unlike, as Canadians1958 posted regarding Verbeek, Ciccarelli and Gartner. If anything, it's a bias towards Mike Bossy's accomplishments of which regular season scoring is ONE OF the accomplishments, along with playoff success, team success, key member of a dynasty team considered among the best teams ever.
very good post.
Admittedly, when I first saw the thread of Lidstom vs. Potvin I would have thought "Potvin by a large margin" just based on memory of how great/dominant he was on the ice, especially in the playoffs, on the road to cups. The fact his name is chanted thirty years later is a testament to what kind of player he was.
That said. You're totally right about Lidstrom's subtle game and where his real value is. I have found myself arguing about how GOOD Lidstrom is for many years, before he "got his due", when he was just another high-scoring Swede on a good PP getting points. I think Lidstrom's gotten BETTER as he's gotten older - not so much in scoring points, but in his overall game, his poise, decisions, confidence.
Lidstrom was once not in the conversation with other great defensemen, in or around the same era, (like Niedermayer, Pronger, MacInnis, Stevens, etc) but it's hard to argue that he's not right up there now.
I see a clear distinction from Orr (although, admittedly, I never saw him play in his prime, except the odd NHL Network game) but there's little doubt he's at the top.
I see Potvin and Bourque defintely up there and then I'd say Lidstrom is in that next group. Amazing company for sure.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure this thread is DONE (thought so a few pages ago but, much like Lidstrom, it continues to deliver, page after page
)
redbull
Boss
- Mar 24, 2008
- 12,593
- 654
I see your point but I'm not so sure about your speculative conclusion (of course, we'll never know for sure)
luck diminishes the value of accomplishment, personally and for a team.
luck makes excuse-makers and apologists thrive - elevates them without the need to actually do anything great.
there have been players who've been "lucky" to play with Wayne Gretzky but unable to take advantage of the situation to achieve team success - like Sandstrom and Granato? Sure they scored a lot of points, but the team ultimately failed.
luck plays a role in creating an environment - if you choose to call it luck. But it's only referred to as "luck" AFTER ACHIEVEMENT TAKES PLACE.
If Kovy scores 50 goals and continues to miss the playoffs that does say something. He played with some pretty good players over the years, Marc Savard, Marian Hossa yet somehow he gets a pass from a failing team. He played with some very good Jersey players this last spring, again, accomplished very little (although I thought he played fairly well and competed hard). Hossa has shown to be a different player in his contributions to a winning team. He doesn't have all the great stats and isn't the leader and core player that Toews and Kane have proven to be - even though he had far better numbers in other uniforms on less successful teams.
Is Marian Gaborik good for the Rangers if they continue to miss the playoffs? He scored more goals/points than his whole career, clearly the best player on the ice for the Rangers in almost every game, accumulating great numbers.
Yet, on BORING MINNESOTA, he went deep into the playoffs as a 20 year old and at least made the playoffs three times. That team was bereft of talent, probably moreso than the NYR are. So was Gaborik more successful as an unhappy Minnesota player forced to play a responsible defensive game in order to win games and play into May? Does he get a pass for scoring a ton of goals on the Rangers when they fail to qualify for the playoffs?
Mike Bossy was FORCED to play responsibly defensively by his coach AND he scored over 60 goals 5 times, over 50 goals four time, 85 playoff goals and won for cups.
Under those circumstances, with the ULTIMATE GOAL of winning games, winning playoff games, he was successful. If he'd scored 10 more goals every year and NOT achieved in the playoffs, he would not be considered one of the all-time great goal scorers.
Epsilon
#basta
The wording of this is a bit confusing. It sounds like you are claiming there was a time period where Lidstrom was not at or above the same level as the names listed, which in the case of Pronger and Niedermayer is completely ridiculous (and in the cases of MacInnis and Stevens it would be due to them already being established stars when Lidstrom first broke in - he passed Stevens in the late 90s and MacInnis in the late 90s/early 2000s). I can't think of any time period where Lidstrom was below Niedermayer and/or other than one isolated season for each of them.
Trottier
Very Random
That implies that collecting points in a bottom-feeder environment, on a team that for most of his career paid little attention to defense, is akin to doing same on a dynasty (read: where the opposition brings its "A" game nightly; a Wings fan should appreciate this stark contrast).
Not to mention the vast difference in style of the two players: Arguably the quickest release in the history of the game...vs. a guy who dominates the puck and who's speed through the neutral zone is more akin to Lafleur than Bossy.
A narrow side by side comparison of raw numbers alone is the only way in which one could reach your conclusion, IMO.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'll accept the wisdom of those who preach with amusing authority about players they never saw, the moment you start accepting the wisdom of today's players from a five month old. Translation: tell me something more than "The adjusted numbers PROVE he's no better than Kovy in today's NHL. (And AO is King!)".
It doesn't matter how old you are if you want to have a stats-related conversation. No one ever claimed Kovalchuk was as good as Bossy overall. But the data is there for all to see.
I don't know anyone with a strong reliance on adjusted stats.
Unfortunately, and I know it sucks for you to admit it, Kovalchuk's regular season goalscoring exploits are approaching Bossy's very quickly. That doesn't say anything else about him except that.
Interesting that you think my post constituted "taking offense"... but anyway, continue your crusade against anyone under 40...
Exactly.
Trottier
Very Random
My only issue with stat worshippers is when, in fact, they present numbers in isolation! As with the case of Bossy's adjusted stats. That is not a small point.
Not by me. I love the player. But my assessment of his game, strengths and weaknesses, would be same if he scored 40, 50 or 60 goals, in whatever era. Has nothing to do with his numbers.
My point exactly. Context.
Trottier
Very Random
Niiiiiiice try. Want me to list the infinite number of posters your age and younger who's knowledge of the game I respect fully? Don't think you want to get in the generalization and accusation game.
Last edited:
So basically it's ok to judge players based on unadjusted numbers in isolation, cup wins, and using the proper context that had Bossy been playing on more offensive teams, of course he would have had 70 or 80 goals. No consideration of how Bossy played with two elite linemates consistently, and Kovalchuk so far in his whole career, has played with no average first liners consistently except one year. However, presenting data made to compare players across eras, is just insane. Amusing to say the least.
