Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[Rhiessan71]

Kelly played 26 games as a forward in the 55-56 season, which was the only time he played for Detroit at that position other than to fill in for injuries for a couple games.

I understand that but then his time with the Leaf's is much more jaded.
He would get his due credit from me on an all-time player list, fitting in somewhere ahead of Coffey and Park.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom IMO, but this let's be honest, he's the best player of the past decade by default. Stars like Forsberg, Jagr and Sakic faded after the first half (for the most part), while Crosby and Ovechkin only played the latter half.

How "default" is it? As early as 2007, I was saying that Lidstrom was the best player of the past decade, which was 98-07 at that point. It was less obvious then than it is now, but I think it was just as true if you take consistent success in both regular season and playoffs into account.

 

[Briere Up There*]

Default in the sense that he was hardly if ever the best player in any particular year. I'm not saying he isn't the player of the past decade, he is, but it seems almost anti-climactic. Admittedly, I'm spoiled by the dominance of past players over other decades and it's hard sometimes to acknowledge Nick's game when it's so effective it's almost benign looking.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I understand that but then his time with the Leaf's is much more jaded.
He would get his due credit from me on an all-time player list, fitting in somewhere ahead of Coffey and Park.

I thought you were refering to only his time in Detroit, where he played defense 95% of the time.
He only played forward for the Leafs.

 

[BM67]

You can certainly make a good argument that Potvin was the best player over a 10 year span. Over the first 10 years of his career he ranked 9th in regular season scoring and 1st in playoff scoring. Yes, amongst all players not just defensemen.

 

[seventieslord]

RD is right, Kelly was only a forward in toronto.

 

[unknown33]

See above cornhole.

Calm down.

After the last two seasons where Lidstrom maintained his high level of play I can finally confidently say:

Lidstrom > Potvin

 

[Rhiessan71]

RD is right, Kelly was only a forward in toronto.

Exactly, and why he gets full credit overall from me but not as much when I have to actually go strictly by position.

 

[Big Phil]

Not to nitpick, but Brodeur can easily have a case made for him as the best player of the decade as well (2000-2009), but I agree Lidstrom can too.

Okay, peak value is certainly Potvin. Lidstrom had some great seasons but he was never at the same level as Potvin in 1976, 1978 or especially 1979. We all know about the story of 1980 when Potvin missed most of the year and HHOFers like Trottier and Bossy had a noticeable dip in production. Not sure Lidstrom could ever have had an impact on Detroit like that.

Now they both won 4 Cups. Potvin is generally regarded as the glue of that dynasty and the most important cog. Take that any way you want, but I value that personally. Lidstrom in the first two Cups would easily be behind Yzerman and Fedorov. He wins the Smythe in 2002, and then in 2008 he's probably third most important on the team. Not bad either.

Offensively - Potvin. Defensively - maybe Lidstrom but that is very, very close. Physical play - Potvin. Intensity - Potvin.

Now career value is very close right now and in the case with these two every time I choose on I can see a reason to choose another. The thing with Potvin is that he was great from the word go. Lidstrom was merely "good" until the late 1990s hit. Now he's made up for that by being great in his old age which is something Potvin didn't have the chance to do since he didn't play post 35 years old. So career value is a toss up.

But the deal breaker is this for me: If you had to pick one guy to start a franchise with who would it be? I can't NOT pick Potvin

 

[canucks4ever]

Not to nitpick, but Brodeur can easily have a case made for him as the best player of the decade as well (2000-2009), but I agree Lidstrom can too.

Okay, peak value is certainly Potvin. Lidstrom had some great seasons but he was never at the same level as Potvin in 1976, 1978 or especially 1979. We all know about the story of 1980 when Potvin missed most of the year and HHOFers like Trottier and Bossy had a noticeable dip in production. Not sure Lidstrom could ever have had an impact on Detroit like that.

Now they both won 4 Cups. Potvin is generally regarded as the glue of that dynasty and the most important cog. Take that any way you want, but I value that personally. Lidstrom in the first two Cups would easily be behind Yzerman and Fedorov. He wins the Smythe in 2002, and then in 2008 he's probably third most important on the team. Not bad either.

Offensively - Potvin. Defensively - maybe Lidstrom but that is very, very close. Physical play - Potvin. Intensity - Potvin.

Now career value is very close right now and in the case with these two every time I choose on I can see a reason to choose another. The thing with Potvin is that he was great from the word go. Lidstrom was merely "good" until the late 1990s hit. Now he's made up for that by being great in his old age which is something Potvin didn't have the chance to do since he didn't play post 35 years old. So career value is a toss up.

But the deal breaker is this for me: If you had to pick one guy to start a franchise with who would it be? I can't NOT pick Potvin

I personally rank Red kelly above potvin too. Better longevity, equal playoff success, red kelly is even arguably better offensively.

I would definetly pick lidstrom to start a team over instead of ptovin, he's the better defender, more durability and potvin's numbers were somewhat reliant on the superstars he played with.

 

[Big Phil]

I personally rank Red kelly above potvin too. Better longevity, equal playoff success, red kelly is even arguably better offensively.

I would definetly pick lidstrom to start a team over instead of ptovin, he's the better defender, more durability and potvin's numbers were somewhat reliant on the superstars he played with.

Not sure I agree with that. The "superstars" he played with didn't exist for a while. 98 points in 1976. Trottier is a rookie, Bossy in playing in the juniors at that time. 80 points in 1977, Trottier's production takes a nosedive. 1978 Potvins outpoints Bossy as a rookie while Trottier begins his prime with 123 points.

All the while Potvin led the Isles in points in his first 4 seasons (1974-'77). Then he naturally started to get outpointed by Bossy and Trottier which is what a superstar forward should do to a non-Orr/Coffey d-man.

 

[canucks4ever]

Not sure I agree with that. The "superstars" he played with didn't exist for a while. 98 points in 1976. Trottier is a rookie, Bossy in playing in the juniors at that time. 80 points in 1977, Trottier's production takes a nosedive. 1978 Potvins outpoints Bossy as a rookie while Trottier begins his prime with 123 points.

All the while Potvin led the Isles in points in his first 4 seasons (1974-'77). Then he naturally started to get outpointed by Bossy and Trottier which is what a superstar forward should do to a non-Orr/Coffey d-man.

Yeah but red kelly's numbers are even more impressive if you go by the eras. I think Red Kelly is arguably a top 15 all time player, very underrated.

From 1950-57, Red Kelly was playing norris caliber defense each year and he was cracking top 10 scoring lists and winning cups and getting hart votes. Then he has his 4-5 years with toronto, I think he is right up there with Mikita in terms of all time rankings.

 

[Dark Shadows]

To the original poster. Career value? Lidstrom wins. Incredible high level longevity and durability.

I consider Potvin's peak to be better.

Yeah but red kelly's numbers are even more impressive if you go by the eras. I think Red Kelly is arguably a top 15 all time player, very underrated.

From 1950-57, Red Kelly was playing norris caliber defense each year and he was cracking top 10 scoring lists and winning cups and getting hart votes. Then he has his 4-5 years with toronto, I think he is right up there with Mikita in terms of all time rankings.

So was Potvin.

Top 10 Scoring finishes as a defenseman:
Kelly: 9th, 8th, 6th, Notable 12th(Played 25-26 games as a Forward this season),
Potvin: Notable 11th(Finished 1 point out of top 10), 17th, 5th, 7th

Norris Caliber defense. Well, both of these players played exactly that. But in very different ways.

Winning cups. Both players did that. Potvin is usually considered the most important of the big 3, mind you a very close decision. All 3 were key. Kelly was often considered one of the best of Detroit's big 4.

Hart votes. Both players got many of these. Mind you in Kelly's day, the media voters did not seem so shy about awarding votes to a defenseman yet. After the Norris came out, votes for defensemen started getting stingy and more stingy as time went on since they had their own award.

Hart record as a defenseman:
Kelly: 10th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 4th
Potvin: 6th, 2nd, 11th, 7th, 4th, 9th, 9th

Did you spill something on your keyboard? I mean WTF.
Anyways, dirty, mean, physical = more PIMs, so it is not all nice and dandy, you are not gonna help your team from penalty box.

No, but Potvin's hitting and physical play had an exceptionally visible effectiveness on the competition. Some things just can't be quantified by stats. They were scared to enter his zone. Scared to go into corners with him. Often coughing the puck up just to avoid being hit. Scared to cross his blueline while carrying the puck. It lead to them making mistakes and him capitalizing. Much like Scott Stevens in modern times. It is definitely a + to his game, and worthy of giving points for.

Better leader? How come? How do you determine who is a better leader? Locker room speeches and hits are not everything.

Potvin's swagger and confidence was a huge + for those Isles teams. Infectious. Every man on that team thought he was a superstar. Every man gave his all every shift following Potvin's example. He demanded excellence from himself and those around him.

Potvin better defensively? No way. Offensively, yes, for sure. Still, peak is very close and overall career is easily Lidstrom.

I would say peakwise the offensive edge Potvin possessed outweighed the defensive edge Lidstrom possessed. Potvin was still one of the best defensive defensemen in the league.

 

[Trottier]

After Robert Gordon Orr, to whom no one compares, Denis Potvin remains the best and most successful defenseman I've ever seen.

 

[seventieslord]

No, but Potvin's hitting and physical play had an exceptionally visible effectiveness on the competition. Some things just can't be quantified by stats. They were scared to enter his zone. Scared to go into corners with him. Often coughing the puck up just to avoid being hit. Scared to cross his blueline while carrying the puck. It lead to them making mistakes and him capitalizing. Much like Scott Stevens in modern times. It is definitely a + to his game, and worthy of giving points for..

It could be argued that if this was so quantifiable, it would indeed show up in the stats. As in more goals for and fewer against when he's on the ice. If he was just as good offensively and in "pure" defense, but not intimidating, you'd expect him to have fewer goals for and more against, right?

Of course, those statstical measures favour Potvin, mainly due to his offensive and defensive capabilities. How much of it is because of his intimidation factor? We can only speculate. Lidstrom did not have that factor but he also outperformed his very strong team every year despite playing against the very best of the opposition.

I guess all I'm trying to say is that this should be in the numerical evidence that exists already.

 

[Trottier]

No, but Potvin's hitting and physical play had an exceptionally visible effectiveness on the competition. Some things just can't be quantified by stats.

Sad this even has to be posted, on the HOH board, no less.

I don't need a ****ing number to tell me what I and countless others saw with our own eyes from the mid-70s through 1988. And it's not selective memory or nostalgia, as the "weren't there" crowd will suggest. Four Cups and his major role toward them validates it, for anyone who wants to doubt it simply because there isn't a precious stat to wrap his/her dome around.

Watch the Legends of Hockey piece on Potvin. Watch what THOSE IN THE GAME - those who played against him - said about his physical intimidation and how it directly benefited his team defensively and offensively. Then try bring up the fact that "it doesn't show on my stat sheet, so it's disputable" meme.

 

[Dgill]

My point? I know this originated after the hit, but you must be pretty darn good if they still chant you suck 30 years later.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Okay, peak value is certainly Potvin. Lidstrom had some great seasons but he was never at the same level as Potvin in 1976, 1978 or especially 1979. We all know about the story of 1980 when Potvin missed most of the year and HHOFers like Trottier and Bossy had a noticeable dip in production. Not sure Lidstrom could ever have had an impact on Detroit like that.

Now they both won 4 Cups. Potvin is generally regarded as the glue of that dynasty and the most important cog. Take that any way you want, but I value that personally. Lidstrom in the first two Cups would easily be behind Yzerman and Fedorov. He wins the Smythe in 2002, and then in 2008 he's probably third most important on the team. Not bad either.

lidstrom may have been the third best player on that fourth detroit cup team, but he was also the guy that gave the team an identity (defensively sound positional play/puck possession hockey). the team's style of play was tailored to his abilities and the boys followed his lead, similar to how stevens may not have been the best devil for all three cups, but he was the backbone.

now, the first two detroit cups didn't go through lidstrom. i give him more credit for those than i give, say, jagr for his two cups, but i agree that potvin was the man on all four cups, while lidstrom was only the man for two. but i give lidstrom the same due you give potvin for those last two cups.

You can certainly make a good argument that Potvin was the best player over a 10 year span. Over the first 10 years of his career he ranked 9th in regular season scoring and 1st in playoff scoring. Yes, amongst all players not just defensemen.

wow, i had no idea. that's staggering. i was barely conscious during the islanders dynasty, so i can't say definitively, but it's hard to make a case for lidstrom's peak after that.

 

[seventieslord]

Sad this even has to be posted, on the HOH board, no less.

I don't need a ****ing number to tell me what I and countless others saw with our own eyes from the mid-70s thorough 1988. And it's not selective memory or nostalgia, as the "weren't there" crowd will suggest. Four Cups and his major role toward them validates it, for anyone who wants to doubt it simply because there isn't a precious stat to wrap his/her dome around.

Watch the Legends of Hockey piece on Potvin. Watch what THOSE IN THE GAME - those who played against him - said about his physical intimidation and how it directly benefited his team defensively and offensively. Then try bring up the fact that "it doesn't show on my stat sheet, so it's disputable" meme.

Seriously, get off your high horse. You're not telling anyone here anything they don't already know.

There is nothing wrong with what I said. If Potvin was indeed this intimidating, then this intimidation would have been, directly, a defensive skill. And he'd have been scored on less. And this would already show in the numbers that exist. There wouldn't need to be "extra credit" given for it.

Just like if you were choosing between, say, Lafleur and Bossy and determined them to be offensive equals, and decided "but overall I choose Lafleur for his skating" - his skating is an attribute, not a result. And without it he'd have fewer goals and points and maybe you wouldn't even be comparing him to Bossy. It's part of why he got those goals and points, not an extra credit piece.

Or like when people say Brodeur and Roy are practically even "but I take Brodeur for his puckhandling" - without realizing that his puckhandling is part of why he had a low GAA and more wins. The end result from this attribute is already built into his numbers, he should not get extra credit for it.

Potvin and Lidstrom, for what it's worth, actually have been remarkably similar in their effectiveness at making their team's goal differential better, even though they were playing against the other team's best players. Lidstrom averaged an adjusted +17 over 18 seasons, and Potvin averaged +21 over 13 seasons' worth of games. I'm not interested in debating which is more impressive, both have their merits. Both did it in completely different ways, of course. Lidstrom's style didn't include intimidation. Potvin's did. And it's definitely part of why he made his team's goal differential better when he was on the ice, and therefore, you can see these effects in his adjusted +/-.

Get what I'm saying now?

In the future, please don't be so quick to jump on anyone who's not as old as you. It's getting tiresome.

 

[redbull]

Curious. Of all the posters who actually saw potvin play from 1975-1985 sees something different, but I don't even think Lidstrom-Potvin is close! Stats cannot begin to quantify the real value of either player IMO - even though both players have impressive numbers.

Potvin was Leetch or Robinson like on offense and meaner and dirtier than Scott Stevens without the puck.

Everyone knew it. He was feared. He was hated. He was respected by fans, players, coaches and teammates and he LED the team to cups in an era sandwiched with two of the best teams of all time (mtl in late 70s and the incredible oilers and 99)

I think Lidstrom is an incredible player, but peak to peak, not even close. Potvin was far better on offense, defense, far more physical, intimidating and feared.

 

[canucks4ever]

To the original poster. Career value? Lidstrom wins. Incredible high level longevity and durability.

I consider Potvin's peak to be better.



So was Potvin.

Top 10 Scoring finishes as a defenseman:
Kelly: 9th, 8th, 6th, Notable 12th(Played 25-26 games as a Forward this season),
Potvin: Notable 11th(Finished 1 point out of top 10), 17th, 5th, 7th

Norris Caliber defense. Well, both of these players played exactly that. But in very different ways.

Winning cups. Both players did that. Potvin is usually considered the most important of the big 3, mind you a very close decision. All 3 were key. Kelly was often considered one of the best of Detroit's big 4.

Hart votes. Both players got many of these. Mind you in Kelly's day, the media voters did not seem so shy about awarding votes to a defenseman yet. After the Norris came out, votes for defensemen started getting stingy and more stingy as time went on since they had their own award.

Hart record as a defenseman:
Kelly: 10th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 4th
Potvin: 6th, 2nd, 11th, 7th, 4th, 9th, 9th



No, but Potvin's hitting and physical play had an exceptionally visible effectiveness on the competition. Some things just can't be quantified by stats. They were scared to enter his zone. Scared to go into corners with him. Often coughing the puck up just to avoid being hit. Scared to cross his blueline while carrying the puck. It lead to them making mistakes and him capitalizing. Much like Scott Stevens in modern times. It is definitely a + to his game, and worthy of giving points for.

Potvin's swagger and confidence was a huge + for those Isles teams. Infectious. Every man on that team thought he was a superstar. Every man gave his all every shift following Potvin's example. He demanded excellence from himself and those around him.



I would say peakwise the offensive edge Potvin possessed outweighed the defensive edge Lidstrom possessed. Potvin was still one of the best defensive defensemen in the league.

Yeah Potvin is right up there with Kelly peak for peak, but once you include Red Kelly's career with Toronto, that has to give him the edge. Even peak for peak kelly wins on scoring finishes and top 5 hart voting.

 

[redbull]

Get what I'm saying now?

In the future, please don't be so quick to jump on anyone who's not as old as you. It's getting tiresome.

All due respect, I think you're missing the point.

Would you say that Jonathan Toews was as effective as Nik Antropov last year? Was matt moulson close to Malkin because he outscored him? Is it wrong to say that Mike Richards is better than Alex burrows?

Stats can be a great indicator and equally meaningless depending on your context. When it comes to the game of hockey, it matters much less.

Players are charged with winning games as a team. The stats represent a means to that end - not vice versa.

Wins matters more than player goals and assists.
It really matters.

Marcel Dionne and Dale are not considered in the same category as Steve Yzerman and Joe Sakic.

You can find numbers to support any side of any argument but players are revered by fans, honored by the peers and in the HHOF based on both personal and team accomplishments.

Its not how many you score - it's also when you score them. Same for saves. Billy Smith had terrible stats relative to other goalies of his time but if youbwatched any of his playoff runs, you cannot deny how much he was valued by the team in front of him an the hockey world since.

 

[pluppe]

Not to nitpick, but Brodeur can easily have a case made for him as the best player of the decade as well (2000-2009), but I agree Lidstrom can too.

I think Lidström is clearly ahead of Brodeur. (and the decade is usually considered 01-00)

Okay, peak value is certainly Potvin. Lidstrom had some great seasons but he was never at the same level as Potvin in 1976, 1978 or especially 1979. We all know about the story of 1980 when Potvin missed most of the year and HHOFers like Trottier and Bossy had a noticeable dip in production. Not sure Lidstrom could ever have had an impact on Detroit like that.

I think this is a very strange way of picking Potvin over Lidström. it´s fine if you want to show how much Potvin influenced the islanders but to use it as a possible negative against Lidström because he was almost never injured is just wrong.

Now they both won 4 Cups. Potvin is generally regarded as the glue of that dynasty and the most important cog. Take that any way you want, but I value that personally. Lidstrom in the first two Cups would easily be behind Yzerman and Fedorov. He wins the Smythe in 2002, and then in 2008 he's probably third most important on the team. Not bad either.

you could easily consider Lidström the only constant of all Detroits cuts the last 50 years. and I doubt he was easily behind Fedorov 98.

and oh yeah, Potvin has how many Conn Smythes. not saying he shouldn´t have. I just think your reasoning here is very biased with a clear agenda.

Offensively - Potvin. Defensively - maybe Lidstrom but that is very, very close. Physical play - Potvin. Intensity - Potvin.

I´ve seen adjusted offensive numbers that made it look much closer but I will give Potvin the edge there. Defensively I think Lidström is generally regarded as a little better.

Smartest - Lidström. Most frustrating to play against - Lidström. Durability - Lidström.

Now career value is very close right now and in the case with these two every time I choose on I can see a reason to choose another. The thing with Potvin is that he was great from the word go. Lidstrom was merely "good" until the late 1990s hit. Now he's made up for that by being great in his old age which is something Potvin didn't have the chance to do since he didn't play post 35 years old. So career value is a toss up.

again it sounds strange to say "something Potvin didn't have the chance to do since he didn't play post 35 years old". he could not or would not. however you spin it it is a huge negative in a career value discussion and frankly makes it very hard to pick Potvin.

But the deal breaker is this for me: If you had to pick one guy to start a franchise with who would it be? I can't NOT pick Potvin

I can.

Sad this even has to be posted, on the HOH board, no less.

I don't need a ****ing number to tell me what I and countless others saw with our own eyes from the mid-70s through 1988. And it's not selective memory or nostalgia, as the "weren't there" crowd will suggest. Four Cups and his major role toward them validates it, for anyone who wants to doubt it simply because there isn't a precious stat to wrap his/her dome around.

who said this. just saying, Lidström was also an important part of four cups.

Watch the Legends of Hockey piece on Potvin. Watch what THOSE IN THE GAME - those who played against him - said about his physical intimidation and how it directly benefited his team defensively and offensively. Then try bring up the fact that "it doesn't show on my stat sheet, so it's disputable" meme.

and you don´t think Lidström will have some nice things said about him once he is retired. those who play against him voted him best shut down defender this year. (that´s 5 years after Potvin retired).

not trying to take anything away from Potvin. I just think that for career value (which was the OP:s question) Lidström is now clearly ahead of Potvin.

 

[Trottier]

In the future, please don't be so quick to jump on anyone who's not as old as you.

I'm not jumping on anyone. I'm pointing out the speciousness of a specific stat-obsessed claim. To wit:

"If Potvin was indeed this intimidating, then this intimidation would have been, directly, a defensive skill. And he'd have been scored on less. And this would already show in the numbers that exist."

This is what happens when numbers come to disproportionately take over one's thought process. S/he makes statement like "If Potvin was indeed this intimidating..."

One watches a player the entirety of his 16 year career...only to be told 20 years later by a latter-day sabremetician that what he and countless others witnessed, consistently, over 1 1/2 decades, is dubious. That it's ripe for debate. Based on nothing more than the usual out-of-context and disproportionate emphasis of numbers.

Has nothing to do with age. Has everything do with BASIC hockey knowledge/appreciation, or lack thereof. Not to be confused with acing Stats 101 class.

If one is not old enough to have watch Potvin, that is no crime. One should to be wise enough, however, to recognize the danger of believing that numbers are a substitute (or better yet, superior! ) to having watched a player for hundreds of games. Otherwise, one comes up with unfortunate, awkward comments like the one quoted above.

 

[pluppe]

All due respect, I think you're missing the point.

Would you say that Jonathan Toews was as effective as Nik Antropov last year? Was matt moulson close to Malkin because he outscored him? Is it wrong to say that Mike Richards is better than Alex burrows?

again your comparisons have no application on this discussion. please stop.

Stats can be a great indicator and equally meaningless depending on your context. When it comes to the game of hockey, it matters much less.

Players are charged with winning games as a team. The stats represent a means to that end - not vice versa.

Wins matters more than player goals and assists.
It really matters.

Marcel Dionne and Dale are not considered in the same category as Steve Yzerman and Joe Sakic.

You can find numbers to support any side of any argument but players are revered by fans, honored by the peers and in the HHOF based on both personal and team accomplishments.

Its not how many you score - it's also when you score them. Same for saves. Billy Smith had terrible stats relative to other goalies of his time but if youbwatched any of his playoff runs, you cannot deny how much he was valued by the team in front of him an the hockey world since.

and Lidström is equal or better than Potvin in "both personal and team accomplishments".