Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[pluppe]

Start making sense and I won't. You sure haven't in this case - "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."

Allllllrighty then. We'll let that sentence stand on its own. Stats 101 class begins at 9am sharp.

I watched a player the entirety of his career...only to be told 20 years later by a resident Sabremetician that what I ad countless others witnessed is dubious. Based on his insufferable, twisted (and let's not forget, udjusted!) numbers. Precious.

Watch the game for a change. You might be enlightened.

I think he had a very good point. maybe it was badly put at first but he explained it beautifully in his response.

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?

so he tried to start making sense. that you choose to ignore it and quote his original post instead is telling.

 

[Trottier]

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

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.

Can you find a single instance in the post of mine that you quote above in which I made a reference to Nik Lidstrom, let alone a direct comparison between him and Potvin? (Answer: no.) I happen to consider Denis Potvin the 2nd best dman I've ever seen. I recognize that many (most) would consider Nik Lidstrom superior. I have neither any quibble with that point of view nor would I even spend a nano-second attempting to persuade minds otherwise. Because it is a very fair opinion, albeit one I do not share.

I think he had a very good point. maybe it was badly put at first but he explained it beautifully in his response.

so he tried to start making sense. that you choose to ignore it and quote his original post instead is telling.

And I'm quite sure that you never watched the player. That is not intended as an insult. But it's the ONLY possible explanation why anyone would even think of questioning Denis Potvin's physical play and its immense impact, based on some alleged lack of verifiable (read: statistical!) evidence.

Yep, just "beautiful".

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

Actually, his applications make perfect sense, IMO, and he happens to be one of HF's most informed posters. You do not happen to agree with his take. That's cool. But why the demand that he "stop"? No need to be threatened by differing points of view.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

How can you use Kelly's career in Toronto to give him the edge when he was almost exclusively a forward there?
That's just plain silly man.

This is why I hate when Kelly is used in any Dman comparison, he is never viewed properly.

 

[ozzie]

This is a difficult one for me. DRW are my favourite team for nearly 25+ years now. However Potivin was my first favourite player and still to this day may favourite defenseman of all time.

I did not get to see Bobby Orr play unfortunately. The best offensive defenseman I have ever seen live is Coffey. The best total package defensemen I have ever seen are Potvin and Bourque.

I really enjoyed Potvin's physical game and the fact that he was a visible impact player at all ends of the ice. He wasn't a beautiful player, he was a hurricane out there, he was a rock, you noticed him.

I think pre-lockout Potvin was still slightly a head of Lidstrom. 5 yrs later Lidstrom has continued to impress with points, cup finals, gold medal at the Olympics. Influencing an entire country and future Swedish defenseman.

Eventually like Bourque, that longevity has to be worth something. Lidstrom is defintely closer to Bourque now than Potvin.

While I would put Lidstrom ahead of Potvin overall right now, I'd still take Potvin for personal preference on my team. That physical element of his game never gets old.

If Potivin was healthier in the 80's, I believe this is no contest. But thats the point, Lidstrom was and is healthy. One of the most consistant players of the last 20 years.

Lidstrom gets my vote for a better career.

 

[canucks4ever]

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.

The only reason Marcel Dionne gets ranked below Yzerman is because he was stuck on crappy teams is whole career. Yzerman in his prime was just as one dimensional and had a lower peak value. Dionne has an art ross, 2 lesters and much better top 5 finishes.

Marcel Dionne's peak from 1975-85 is easily better than Yzerman's peak from 87-97, thats a no conest. He was far more dominant in scoring and hart trophy voting. Especially in 1977, 79, 80 and 81, he was in the conversation for best player.

Yzerman only became a good defender when bowman came and by then he was a 69-75 point scorer. If Yzerman remained on crappy teeams, there would be no debate that Marcel is better. Just look where Steve was ranked in the 1998 hockey news list, well below dionne.

Yzerman was seen as an underachiever and no show until the red wings were a stacked team, dont make it sound like he was viewed as a class above dionne his whole career, thats far from the truth.

 

[Dark Shadows]

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.

Of course he will win on top 5 Hart voting. Voters were more inclined to vote for defensemen before the invention of the Norris trophy.

Scoring finishes Potvin is right there with him. Another amazing factor is that Potvin lead his team in scoring 4 times.

In addition, while Kelly has 7 fantastic years on defense and several very good years as a forward, Potvin also has many good years while still playing at top level outside best 7 years.

I rank the two side by side

 

[Dark Shadows]

The only reason Marcel Dionne gets ranked below Yzerman is because he was stuck on crappy teams is whole career. Yzerman in his prime was just as one dimensional and had a lower peak value. Dionne has an art ross, 2 lesters and much better top 5 finishes.

Marcel Dionne's peak from 1975-85 is easily better than Yzerman's peak from 87-97, thats a no conest. He was far more dominant in scoring and hart trophy voting.

Yzerman only became a good defender when bowman came and by then he was a 69-75 point scorer. If Yzerman remained on crappy teeams, there would be no debate that Marcel is better. Just look where Steve was ranked in the 1998 hockey news list, well below dionne.

Yzerman was seen as an underachiever and no show until the red wings were a stacked team, dont make it sound like he was viewed as a class above dionne his whole career, thats far from the truth.

Not accurate. Yzerman scored 95 points and 85 points and ranked 3rd in Selke voting in the 95 point year. Also, in one of those years he finished with 79 points, that was good enough to get him in the top 10 scoring. You who preach adjusted stats all the time should know this.

Yzerman, while a bit of an underachiever early in his career, never ever was as bad in the playoffs as Marcel Dionne.

Talking about Yzerman's finish below Dionne in the Hockey news top 100 at age 31 is a bit strange. Yzerman went on to play 9 more years, accumulating a Conn Smythe, 1st team all star, Selke + 5th place finish + 4th place finish(Cementing himself as one of the greatest two way forwards of all time) + , 2 more cups. The Hockey news did another poll in 2007. Top 60 since 67, in which Yzerman finished 6th overall, while Dionne finished 23rd.

 

[canucks4ever]

Not accurate. Yzerman scored 95 points and 85 points and ranked 3rd in Selke voting in the 95 point year. Also, in one of those years he finished with 79 points, that was good enough to get him in the top 10 scoring. You who preach adjusted stats all the time should know this.

Yzerman, while a bit of an underachiever early in his career, never ever was as bad in the playoffs as Marcel Dionne.

Talking about Yzerman's finish below Dionne in the Hockey news top 100 at age 31 is a bit strange. Yzerman went on to play 9 more years, accumulating a Conn Smythe, 1st team all star, Selke + 5th place finish + 4th place finish(Cementing himself as one of the greatest two way forwards of all time) + , 2 more cups. The Hockey news did another poll in 2007. Top 60 since 67, in which Yzerman finished 6th overall, while Dionne finished 23rd.

Well most people play thier best hockey from the age of 20-32 and during that time frame Dionne was greater than Yzerman. Yzerman got to play for great teams in 1998 and 2002, congradulations to him. The Yzerman from 87-93 at his absolute best was not as good as Marcel Dionne from 77-83.

 

[Trottier]

I really enjoyed Potvin's physical game and the fact that he was a visible impact player at all ends of the ice. He wasn't a beautiful player, he was a hurricane out there, he was a rock, you noticed him.

That's a wonderful and insightful first-hand description of the player.

Another interesting thing about Potvin - and a point that was brought up frequently when he first came into the league - was that his offensive game was cerebral, when compared to the style of the standard bearer, Bobby Orr. That may seem to run counter to your description of him as a "hurricane", but that's not the case. It's just that #4's game quite often was to simply outskate everyone on the ice. Potvin navigated the puck up the ice in a much more deliberate manner. The contrast in styles was striking.

Thinking about it a bit more, in the context of this thread topic, I'd suggest that "cerebral" is the best description for Lidstrom's exceptional defensive game. Which, unfortunately, is why it is underappreciated by some, IMO.

 

[pluppe]

Can you find a single instance in the post of mine that you quote above in which I made a reference to Nik Lidstrom, let alone a direct comparison between him and Potvin? (Answer: no.) I happen to consider Denis Potvin the 2nd best dman I've ever seen. I recognize that many (most) would consider Nik Lidstrom superior. I have neither any quibble with that point of view nor would I even spend a nano-second attempting to persuade minds otherwise. Because it is a very fair opinion, albeit one I do not share.

since this topic is a direct comparison between Lidström and Potvin and you critizised a opinion which would bring them closer together it´s not hard to see how it applies. two posts previous you stated Potvin was the second best and most succesfull you have seen. In a topic debating Lidström/Potvin. if that also had nothing to do with Lidström perhaps you should find another topic to post in.

And I'm quite sure that you never watched the player. That is not intended as an insult. But it's the ONLY possible explanation why anyone would even think of questioning of Denis Potvin's physical play and its impact, based on some alleged lack of verifiable (read: statistical!) evidence.

I hope you are not implying I ever did that. and neither did Seventieslord. he merely questioned just how big this impact was on the results of a game compared to that of another defender with a different style. of course it has impact. but maybe another style can impact as much.

Yep, just "beautiful".

well I am, thank you.

Actually, his applications make perfect sense, IMO, and he happens to be one of HF's most informed posters. You do not happen to agree with his take. That's cool. But why the demand that he "stop"? No need to be threatened by differing points of view.

right,

Lidström to Potvin is the same as

Gartner to Bossy

Antropov to Toews

Moulson to Malkin

Burrows to Mike Richards


if you think these are good comparables I don´t know what to say. do you?

of course he can say whatever he wants. but I think he should stop because I find his comments disrespectful to one of the game´s greats. something I thought you of all people should be able to appreciate

 

[Trottier]

since this topic is a direct comparison between Lidström and Potvin and you critizised a opinion which would bring them closer together it´s not hard to see how it applies. two posts previous you stated Potvin was the second best and most succesfull you have seen. In a topic debating Lidström/Potvin. if that also had nothing to do with Lidström perhaps you should find another topic to post in.

First you instruct Redbull to "stop". Now you have the gall to tell me where to post. Good stuff. Keep it up.

...but I think he should stop because I find his comments disrespectful to one of the games greats.

RB can speak for himself. But I assure you he is not intending to disrespect Nik Lidstrom in any way whatsoever. Based on your reaction to his comment, combined your misguided notion above that I was disparaging Lidstrom in any manner, you may be a bit overly sensitive when it comes to the player.

PS - I never "criticized" any opinion Lidstrom/Potvin. I did challenge an unhealthy reliance on statistics, regardless of the point of view it is supposedly supporting. Hopefully, you can make that distinction.

 

[pluppe]

First you childishly tell redbull to "stop". Now you have the gall to tell me where to post. Keep it up. You'll last here long.

ah, but calling someone childish is so mature. got it. yes I have the gall. sue me.

seriously though. if you read through your posts and do not find them belittling to people in any way.

RB can speak for himself. But I assure you he is not intending to disrespect Nik Lidstrom in any way whatsoever. Based on your reaction to his comment, combined your misguided notion above that I was disparaging Lidstrom in any manner, you may be a bit overly sensitive when it comes to the player.

but I think he did disrespect Lidström. and he did it twice.

of course I am overly sensitive. just as you are overly sensitive when it comes to Potvin. I know I am biased. do you know you are?

and while you are answering questions, I think you missed this:

Lidström to Potvin is the same as

Gartner to Bossy

Antropov to Toews

Moulson to Malkin

Burrows to Mike Richards


if you think these are good comparables I don´t know what to say. do you?

 

[Reds4Life]

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.

Still did not make him a better defensive player than Lidstrom is. Like I said, Potvin's style leads to more penalty minutes, period. That is not good for your team no matter what you say.

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.

So what? How does THIS make him a better leader. We are not comparing a scrub with Beliveau. Have you played with both Lidstrom and Potvin? Did you share a locker room with them?
No fookin way. So you have nothing to back up your claims of Potvin being a better leader. I can find MANY quotes saying Lidstrom is excellent leader and you can do the same for Potvin. In the end it is impossible to determine who is the better leader. You can clearly see Potvin is more vocal, but vocal does not equal good.

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.

Lidstrom was still one of the best offensive defensemen in the league WHILE being the best defensive defenseman..by far. You value offense higher, that is fine, but their peaks are very close either way. Career is not even close.

Some posters seem to give points for style and being vocal. Lidstrom is simply more effective player and he does not need to shout like crazy to be a good leader.

 

[Trottier]

of course I am overly sensitive. just as you are overly sensitive when it comes to Potvin. I know I am biased. do you know you are?

Indeed.

"I happen to consider Denis Potvin the 2nd best dman I've ever seen. I recognize that many (most) would consider Nik Lidstrom superior. I have neither any quibble with that point of view nor would I even spend a nano-second attempting to persuade minds otherwise. Because it is a very fair opinion, albeit one I do not share."

There I am, ^^^ being overly sensitive.

There is no equivalence between critical thought and insecurity. Nice try though.

It's been a joy engaging with you. Now excuse me as I move along.

 

[pluppe]

Indeed.

"I happen to consider Denis Potvin the 2nd best dman I've ever seen. I recognize that many (most) would consider Nik Lidstrom superior. I have neither any quibble with that point of view nor would I even spend a nano-second attempting to persuade minds otherwise. Because it is a very fair opinion, albeit one I do not share."

There I am, ^^^ being overly sensitive.

There is no equivalence between critical thought and insecurity. Nice try though.

no, but here you are being overly sensitive.

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.

I may be a on-eyed man but at least I know it.

It's been a joy engaging with you. Now excuse me as I move along.

thank you too. I don´t mind that at all, It gets tieredsome not being answered over and over.

 

[VMBM]

The only reason Marcel Dionne gets ranked below Yzerman is because he was stuck on crappy teams is whole career. Yzerman in his prime was just as one dimensional and had a lower peak value. Dionne has an art ross, 2 lesters and much better top 5 finishes.

Maybe also because in the playoffs, his numbers dropped like a rock. He was a mediocre performer in international competition too, never one of the leading players in best-on-best tournaments and usually not even in the numerous World Championships he played.

I would almost call him overrated, meaning that his regular season numbers flatter him (and based on the 13-15 or so complete games I've seen him play).

 

[King Woodballs]

Potvin
not even close
Lidstrom big fish little pond

 

[RabbinsDuck]

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.

That is remarkably impressive.

Lidstrom, for several 10 year periods, falls right around 19-20th in the NHL. 1st through 6th for different 10-year stretches in the playoffs.
Close, especially if we allow there are a fair amount of Euros ahead of Lidstrom that would most likely not be in the NHL in the 70s-80s. But the offensive prime definitely goes to Potvin.

I was a bit surprised Trottier's +/- was better than Potvin's during that 10-year time period (both are far behind Robinson). Lidstrom destroys the rest of the NHL in +/- during his spans of dominance - by margins as large as 50%. That is very impressive as well, considering the quality of competition Lidstrom faced nightly was much higher than the forwards listed ahead of him.

 

[danincanada]

Potvin
not even close
Lidstrom big fish little pond

They are definitely close no matter what side of the fence you sit but if either player was the big fish in a little pond it was Potvin because there were less Europeans in the NHL then and no Russians. Just add an adjusted to NA hockey Fetisov to the 80's and maybe he wins a few Norris'.

I also think physical play is being overrated by some here. I've seen Lidstrom frustrate players beyond belief in playoff series. So much that they appear to give up trying to beat him one on one by the end of the series. He's done it to Lindros, Thornton and even Crosby. None of that was due to being physical and it all had to do with positioning, hard work and a tremendous amount of skill.

He's proven you don't have to be physical to be great. We already knew that from watching Gretzky and Lemieux but it took time for people to see it can apply to dmen too.

 

[redbull]

The only reason Marcel Dionne gets ranked below Yzerman is because he was stuck on crappy teams is whole career. Yzerman in his prime was just as one dimensional and had a lower peak value. Dionne has an art ross, 2 lesters and much better top 5 finishes.
...
Yzerman was seen as an underachiever and no show until the red wings were a stacked team, dont make it sound like he was viewed as a class above dionne his whole career, thats far from the truth.

Are you being too easy on Dionne? was he “stuck on crappy teams” or was he unable to elevate his team, to lead his team deep into the playoffs?

Are you giving Yzerman too little credit? was Yzerman the RESULT OF a stacked team or was he able to LEAD a better team to a championship?

You cannot forgive Dionne for poor teams and then discount Yzerman’s achievements. You’re implying the team makes the player and not vice-versa. I think there are attributes that winners possess that allow for team success. Of course, there is always support - but there’s a big difference between the leaders of the team and the support players.

There’s a disproportionate contribution to team success, often reflected in big minutes, goals/assists - but far more often in less measurable ways that typically result in team success. See: Jonathan Toews most recently. Crosby. Messier. Sakic. etc etc.

I did challenge an unhealthy reliance on statistics, regardless of the point of view it is supposedly supporting. Hopefully, you can make that distinction.

Thank you. Unhealthy reliance on statistics - perfect.

Lidström to Potvin is the same as
Gartner to Bossy
Antropov to Toews
Moulson to Malkin
Burrows to Mike Richards
if you think these are good comparables I don´t know what to say. do you?

Because of my several attempts to convey that the emphasis on statistics when evaluating players is flawed, I tried with overly simplistic examples (yes, hyperbole) to further illustrate a glaring point that is way-too-often missed.

I appreciate the statistical relevance in evaluating players - TO SOME EXTENT. But, especially when talking about defensemen like Lidstom and Potvin, it’s so far down the list of what makes these players great that they are almost negligible.

You obviously read the posts, I appreciate it...but you aren’t understanding MY VIEW on the stats. I’m not disputing the stats at all - in fact, I simply put a SMALL weighting on evaluating these two players specifically.

If you think Lidstrom is a better player than Potvin then that’s perfectly fine. Your opinion. If you (or anyone else) thinks otherwise - also fine. I think Lidstrom is fantastic. How he’s played, and for how long he’s been able to maintain that level of play, incredible. I can completely respect that opinion WITHOUT any numbers.

I believe that merely looking for numbers to support that viewpoint HINDERS the argument and misses the point, and BOTH Lidstrom’s and Potvin’s real value.

It does seem obvious to me that you have not seen Potvin play in his prime. I don’t mean that as a slight in any way. I posed the question earlier of those who watched Potvin play, in his prime AND watched Lidstrom play, was Potvin not the better player? Peak to peak? Serious question - just based on those who watched them BOTH play at their peak.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

I'm not calling anyone's claims about Potvin dubious, I am simply pointing out that what Dark Shadows said could easily lead to double-crediting of the same attribute.

 

[seventieslord]

Because of my several attempts to convey that the emphasis on statistics when evaluating players is flawed, I tried with overly simplistic examples (yes, hyperbole) to further illustrate a glaring point that is way-too-often missed.

To answer those comparisons, obviously there is more to it than just looking at their raw points - for example, who were their linemates, and did they just feast on the PP? DId they get more ice time just by being on a bad team? And so on. But simplistically, it could be stated that (obviously lesser player) had a comparable offensive season to (obviously better player) - The obviously better player doesn't have to be obviously better every game of every season. Antropov coming close to Toews in offense for one season doesn't prove anything - let's see him do it three times or something.

I appreciate the statistical relevance in evaluating players - TO SOME EXTENT. But, especially when talking about defensemen like Lidstom and Potvin, it’s so far down the list of what makes these players great that they are almost negligible.

If you're talking about scoring stats, I agree. I think that would be a really silly way to compare two defensemen, comparing their point totals or adjusted totals and leaving it at that. But I haven't done that. In fact all I ever mentioned in this thread is their adjusted +/- which measures their effectiveness in improving their team's goal differential when on the ice. It is a very valid comparison because:

- They both spent the majority of their careers on good teams
- They were (almost) always #1 defensemen logging a ton of minutes
- They always played against the opposition's best

Potvin had a better score per season, but Lidstrom maintained it longer. Based on that particular metric, they look rather close, and it really matches what the perceptions of the two players are, too.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Potvin peak: similarly to Trottier he could perform in every aspect of the game at an elite level

Lidstrom career: for his ridiculously long time at a high level..

coin toss as to whom is better overall in my opinion.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Still did not make him a better defensive player than Lidstrom is. Like I said, Potvin's style leads to more penalty minutes, period. That is not good for your team no matter what you say.

I could really care less. I watched both players play. Potvin, defensively was nearly as good as Lidstrom, while showing a larger offensive edge. He is also one of the best playoff warriors ever.

And if you don't like his style because it leads to penalties, too bad for you. Potvin's style lead to the opposing team playing in disarray afraid of him, (Not to mention taking retaliation penalties) and coaches pulling out their hair trying to get players to execute their systems without being afraid of Potvin. In a 7 game series, that paid dividends and wore the opposing team out much quicker and was well worth the penalty minutes IMO.

So what? How does THIS make him a better leader. We are not comparing a scrub with Beliveau. Have you played with both Lidstrom and Potvin? Did you share a locker room with them?
No fookin way. So you have nothing to back up your claims of Potvin being a better leader. I can find MANY quotes saying Lidstrom is excellent leader and you can do the same for Potvin. In the end it is impossible to determine who is the better leader. You can clearly see Potvin is more vocal, but vocal does not equal good.

I am perfectly justified in having my opinion of Potvin's leadsership.

Lidstrom was still one of the best offensive defensemen in the league WHILE being the best defensive defenseman..by far. You value offense higher, that is fine, but their peaks are very close either way. Career is not even close.

Actually, I don't value offense higher. But the defensive edge is smaller than the offensive edge in this case.

As I already said, I do give Lidstrom the career nod. Potvin simply had a better peak.

Some posters seem to give points for style and being vocal. Lidstrom is simply more effective player and he does not need to shout like crazy to be a good leader.

And we gave very good reasons for thinking so. You just do not like those reasons.

 

[overg]

He's done it to Lindros, Thornton and even Crosby.

Probably the best example is Keith Tkachuk. That was a guy who should have been built for the playoffs, who had the misfortune of playing on a St. Louis team that kept running into Detroit in the playoffs. I remember after one series Keith made the exasperated comment [paraphrased], "Lidstrom's perfect, I'd give *anything* to have him on my team." That was *before* Lidstrom starting winning his Norris trophies.

But yes, generally speaking, there have been too many forwards to count who have chosen to enter the other side of the zone rather than try to take Lidstrom 1 on 1. His poke check has to be one of the most feared defensive weapons in history.

Having said that, I never saw Potvin, so I can't speak to the comparison directly. Just wanted to back up the notion that Lidstrom absolutely intimidated his opposition . . . he just didn't do it with hitting.