Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[Trottier]

You acknowledge very well that you can't be a winner every year, but at the same time this sounds like your opinion of a player can be distilled to how many times they won and how high up that winning team's depth chart they were.

I believe you (mis)interpreted my comment out of context. My post was in direct response to the specific point about a player getting a reputation for being "clutch".

By no means do I consider it - winning - the single factor. I'm not even sure where I place it among considerations. But ultimately, that point (the amount of weight place on team success) is typically moot.

Because the greats of the game, with rare exception, have won. No coincidence. No luck.

So, I suppose, one could say that Lidstrom and Potvin's greatness is simply further validated or bolstered by their respective teams' success. Of course, there are multiple factors involved in their teams' success, but so what? The fact remains: great players lead great teams to great things. To borrow from Canadiens58: no slight of hand semantics required. No over-thinking needed.

Perhaps some would view the two players precisely the same were they to have never won a Cup, let alone eight between them. Simply "unlucky" or victims of their circumstances.

I wouldn't.

 

[seventieslord]

First, good stuff.

Second, with regard to your question: I consider Bourque superior to Robinson, though probably not to the degree that you do. But that's just opinion.

With regard to Cups, I do not hold anything against Bourque because his teams could not win it all. I do, however, give Robinson credit in that he was presented with the opportunity (by virtue of a great team, of which he was a MAJOR contributor) to win, a lot. And he and his teammates seized it. To ooften here I read people saying that a guy won a lot "because of his team".

Well, yes.

And, teams are comprised of individual players, talents.

And, in the case of Robinson, he was a major talent and critical component of those teams.

Hence, he richly deserves plaudits.

But at the same time, Robinson could have been the same player with the same level of talent but on Atlanta, and wouldn't have won a thing. Ideally we should still think he's awesome, even if he never won a thing. His talent level should still shine through the muck he's mired in.

"because of his team" is a poor choice of words, but some teams are so strong that they could be a winner with or without player A.

I realize winning is important, and we love winners, but doesn't this mean that a player's ranking in an all-time context is to a certain degree based on luck, as in, being fortunate enough to be reserved or drafted by a great team, or the opposite?

 

[Trottier]

I realize winning is important, and we love winners, but doesn't this mean that a player's ranking in an all-time context is to a certain degree based on luck....

We're not going to convince each other otherwise.

I do not consider winning a Stanley Cup to be luck, in any way, shape or form.

I agree with you that a great player is a great player, period.

However, I also think that a great player who has led a team to success deserves special credit. Otherwise, we can diminish all success.

Since we're drowning in hypotheticials, I'll leave you with this one:

Let's suppose that AO and Crosby continue on their career trajectories, AO becomes a career 600+ goal scorer, wins several more scoring titles and Hart Trophies. Crosby, too, wins his share of scoring titles, additional Harts, finishes among the top 10 in alltime career points, ya-da-ya-da. In other words, they further burnish their legacies as the two top players of their era.

And let's say both players continue to be surrounded by solid teammates and lead successful teams who are rightly considered contenders annually (or nearly annually.)

Finally, let's say Sid's Pens win three or more Cups over the reaminder of his career...and AO's Caps win one or none.

Now, fast forward to the end of their careers, say, 2025 or so.

Think history should/will view them "equal"? Think they'd consider Crosby simply luckier?

Last word is yours....

 

[BraveCanadian]

But at the same time, Robinson could have been the same player with the same level of talent but on Atlanta, and wouldn't have won a thing. Ideally we should still think he's awesome, even if he never won a thing. His talent level should still shine through the muck he's mired in.

"because of his team" is a poor choice of words, but some teams are so strong that they could be a winner with or without player A.

I realize winning is important, and we love winners, but doesn't this mean that a player's ranking in an all-time context is to a certain degree based on luck, as in, being fortunate enough to be reserved or drafted by a great team, or the opposite?

Yes. Especially in the older days when player movement wasn't as easy for the player to initiate and free agency wasn't as big a deal.

Now we have the possibility of mercenaries like Marian Hossa.

 

[Trottier]

Yes. Especially in the older days when player movement wasn't as easy for the player to initiate and free agency wasn't as big a deal.

To play Devil's advocate:

Where was Denis Potvin's luck? He was drafted into a bottom feeder in 1973...and then they improved immediately. Seems to me they were "lucky", not the player.

Ditto the Wings. For all the great players they've had over the last couple of decades, no Cups until Lidstrom arrived. Luck? Coincidence?

Hardly.

More like cause/effect if you ask me. Because truly great players have that disproportionate an impact.

That is why they are exceptional. They are able to do more than achieve personal success. They are capable of translating it into team success. Not suggesting they are the solitary reason. But they are the catalyst.

Man we're good at diminishing accomplishment and true success around here!

 

[pappyline]

We're not going to convince each other otherwise, and we're headed down a black hole of hypotheticals.

I do not consider winning a Stanley Cup to be luck, in any way, shape or form.

I agree that a great player is a great player, period.

I also think that a great player who has led a team to success deserves special credit. Otherwise, we can diminish all success.

Last word is yours....

With all due respect, of course there is a large element of luck. It takes the right mixture of players, coaching, & clutch goaltending to win a cup. Al Arbour is a prime example. won cups with Wings, Hawks & Leafs as a benchwarmer. Agree that we should give credit to players that were key to a cup winner (Potvin) but they deserve no more credit than players that performed admirably but didn't win(Bill Gadsby). Being on a cup winner has a lot to do with circumstances. Luck is most certainly a major factor.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Backward Reasoning

But at the same time, Robinson could have been the same player with the same level of talent but on Atlanta, and wouldn't have won a thing. Ideally we should still think he's awesome, even if he never won a thing. His talent level should still shine through the muck he's mired in.

"because of his team" is a poor choice of words, but some teams are so strong that they could be a winner with or without player A.

I realize winning is important, and we love winners, but doesn't this mean that a player's ranking in an all-time context is to a certain degree based on luck, as in, being fortunate enough to be reserved or drafted by a great team, or the opposite?

Classic backward reasoning. Forward reasoning from the start of of a player's career changes the various perceptions of randomness and luck.Observe.

Larry Robinson was drafted 20th overall in the 1971NHL Amateur Draft, the fourth player chosen by the Montreal Canadiens passed over at least once by all the existing NHL teams.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/draft/NHL_1971_amateur.html

Why? Larry Robinson was a forward converted to defense playing Jr. A who until his only Major Junior season was barely on the NHL track. The only reason that he played for Kitchener that season, the OHA was because they were a non-playoff team lacking players. Kitchener did not make the playoffs but Larry Robinson performed well enough to get noticed. Last year players getting a major junior chance with a weak team was fairly common based on the recommendation of respected coaches or scouts. Taking advantage of such an opportunity was not.

Why did every team pass on Larry Robinson? He was a project and teams were not willing to risk a 1st round pick nor did they have experienced support coaching in place. The Canadiens did - Sam Pollock, Claude Ruel and the new coach Scotty Bowman had been part of the organization when J.C. Tremblay was converted from forward to defence. The Canadiens drafted him, developed Larry Robinson properly to the benefit of the player and team. Just a convergence of factors, not luck and randomness, if the situation is reasoned going forward as it actually happened.

Reason the Nicklas Lidstrom situation forward - how and when he was drafted and you will also see that luck and randomness disappear as factors.

True for other situations as well.Luck and randomness are attractive explanations for success only if a situation is reasoned backwards.

 

[Trottier]

With all due respect, of course there is a large element of luck.

And with equal respect, talent is not simply, or primarily, luck. Although those without it often try to suggest otherwise.

It takes the right mixture of players, coaching, & clutch goaltending to win a cup.

True, and?...That's "luck"?

Perhaps we simply have different word definitions.

Otherwise, the Hawks just so happened to be "the luckiest" team this past spring. And the 30th place team in the league just happened to be the "unluckiest". (And don't forget the "wisdom" from the main board, which is apparently creeping in even here: Toews is "just a lucky player!")

Let's leave it at that.

 

[pappyline]

And with equal respect, talent is not luck. Although those without it often try to suggest otherwise.



Yes, and?...that's "luck"?

Perhaps we simply have different word definitions.

Let's leave it at that. Otherwise, the Hawks just so happened to be "the luckiest" team this past spring. And the 30th place team in the league just happened to be the "unluckiest".

Come on now. lets not be ridiculous. You can do better than that. That is not what I said. What I said was, a player has to be lucky to be put on a team that has the overall talent to compete for & win a cup. Al Arbour was lucky , Bill Gadsby wasn't. Replace Al Arbour with Bill Gadsby & those Arbour cup winning teams would have been much stronger. Arbour was lucky, Gadsby wasn't.

 

[unknown33]

And with equal respect, talent is not simply, or primarily, luck. Although those without it often try to suggest otherwise.

Can't really read it out of your postings ...
Would you say that there is no luck at all involved in sports?

 

[norrisnick]

You can't win the Cup without luck on your side. Patently impossible. You have to be a good team, but you also have to be luckier than the other 15 teams that qualified. Injuries, bounces, key calls, etc... They all factor in. There is more luck and randomness in hockey than any other of the major sports.

 

[unknown33]

There is more luck and randomness in hockey than any other of the major sports.

Football

One game elimation
Unbalanced 16 games schedule

 

[Maupin Fan]

Football

One game elimation
Unbalanced 16 games schedule

Also add the NCAA basketball tournament to that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Failing to Prepare

Can't really read it out of your postings ...
Would you say that there is no luck at all involved in sports?

There is an old adage in sport and in life.

"Failing to prepare is preparing to fail."

Effectively what is referred to as luck or randomness is simply the failure to prepare for all the possible situations and opportunities.

Combined with the unwillingness to do so(prepare) and you have the shortest possible route to disaster.

Things that people try to attribute to luck or randomness inevitably are explainable.

 

[Trottier]

Come on now. lets not be ridiculous. You can do better than that. That is not what I said. What I said was, a player has to be lucky to be put on a team that has the overall talent to compete for & win a cup. Al Arbour was lucky , Bill Gadsby wasn't. Replace Al Arbour with Bill Gadsby & those Arbour cup winning teams would have been much stronger. Arbour was lucky, Gadsby wasn't.

OK, and replace Mark Messier on the '94 Cup winning Rangers with the guy for whom he was traded, Bernie Nichols, and NYR is going on its 71st straight year without a championship.

Again, I do not see where that makes Messier lucky, especially considering his remarkable (except to a few here) legacy of success. If anything, his team was lucky to have him "put" on their roster.

Can't really read it out of your postings ...
Would you say that there is no luck at all involved in sports?

Absolutely not. Luck is, of course, an element...but not nearly to the exaggerated extent portrayed by some here.

People and teams of accomplish don't just "happen to have things fall their way". The successful pursuit of the Cup is not a surrendipitous occurence. A great player, performing as such on a great team, is not just happenstance.

Per Canadiens58, things that some people love to attribute to luck or randomness inevitably are explainable. (Read: not luck.) And often accomplishment is mischaracterized as such by those who are unfamiliar with it. Heck, I'm reading a post on this very page that implies the more a team wins, the luckier they are! Champions are are overrated, apparently...nothing more than simply random, fortunate events. Dynasties even moreso!

 

[unknown33]

Things that people try to attribute to luck or randomness inevitably are explainable.

Explainable but sometimes not influenceable.

 

[unknown33]

Absolutely not. Luck is, of course, an element...but not nearly to the exaggerated extent portrayed by some here.

Then we seem to agree.
Misinterpreted your posts.

 

[Maupin Fan]

There is an old adage in sport and in life.

"Failing to prepare is preparing to fail."

Effectively what is referred to as luck or randomness is simply the failure to prepare for all the possible situations and opportunities.

Combined with the unwillingness to do so(prepare) and you have the shortest possible route to disaster.

Things that people try to attribute to luck or randomness inevitably are explainable.

I would argue that in many instances, getting injured can be attributed to sheer chance or luck. I think the Brian Campbell broken collarbone from this season is a fair example of an injury being luck, or the absence of. Slightly leaned on by Ovechkin, skate hits a rut in the ice causing him to fall head first. No rut, no head first dive. Also, deflected shots, skate cuts, etc.

 

[pappyline]

OK, and replace Mark Messier on the '94 Cup winning Rangers with the guy for whom he was traded, Bernie Nichols, and NYR is going on its 71st straight year without a championship.

Again, I do not see where that makes Messier lucky, especially considering his remarkable (except to a few here) legacy of success. If anything, his team was lucky to have him "put" on their roster.

Of course he was lucky. He went to a team that had the cast to potentially win a cup. Are you saying that Messier could have joined the worst team in the league & they would have won the cup. ********.

 

[Maupin Fan]

Of course he was lucky. He went to a team that had the cast to potentially win a cup. Are you saying that Messier could have joined the worst team in the league & they would have one the cup. ********.

I think this disagreement on luck may be one of terminology.

A few posters are getting hung up on the term "luck" because it implies that a player's or the teams skill, work, etc had nothing to do with the success, which is what "luck" implies.

A better term may be "fortuitous."

Was Messier fortuitous in going to a team that had a supporting cast to potentially win a cup versus going to Ottawa? Absolutely.

Did luck play anything more that a very small role in Messier and the Rangers winning the Cup? I don't think so.

 

[Trottier]

Of course he was lucky. He went to a team that had the cast to potentially win a cup.

True. And if Bernie Nichols had remained instead of Messier, same "lucky" result for him, correct?

Does individual talent, desire, execution and accomplishment play anywhere in these equations?

Are you saying that Messier could have joined the worst team in the league & they would have won the cup. ********.

No, I said he joined a team and played a major and undeniable role in them winning a Cup.

Reality vs. hypotheticals. Acknowledging a player (and team's) accomplishment...vs. attempting to devalue it in any way, which is daily sport among some here. (Not directed at you.)

Sidenote: I wonder which team is going to be "the luckiest" next season and happen to be standing around when they hand out the Cup next June.

 

[overg]

With regard to Cups, I do not hold anything against Bourque because his teams could not win it all. I do, however, give Robinson credit in that he was presented with the opportunity (by virtue of a great team, of which he was a MAJOR contributor) to win, a lot. And he and his teammates seized it. To often here I read people saying that a guy won a lot "because of his team".

Well, yes.

...And, teams are comprised of individual players, talents.

...And, in the case of Robinson, he was a major talent and critical component of those teams.

Absolutely agree. While I understand the argument "it's unfair to dock a player who never had a chance due to his team," I also think it's grossly unfair to ignore a player who grabbed his opportunities and converted them into Cups.

There are quite a few great players who *did* have the chance to win the Cup, but failed. Lindros' Flyers had enough talent. So do Thornton's Sharks. But those two players shrank when the going got tough. Great player on Great team =/ automatic Cup.

Players like Lidstrom and Potvin got it done in the most important games out there. They were integral cogs in Cup winning machines, and I think you absolutely have to give them credit for that. We *know* they can come through in the biggest of games, and I think it's entirely unfair to ignore that fact just because certain other players may not have had the opportunity.

 

[norrisnick]

Football

One game elimation
Unbalanced 16 games schedule

Football? How many of those one game eliminations are determined by a solitary scoring play? IE only one team scores? How many of your standard playoff touchdowns are passes that bounce off 3-4 different sets of hands and a helmet before getting caught? Imagine fumble drills after every score (faceoffs). There is as much standing around and planning time between plays in football as there is in your standard hockey shift, which of course changes on the fly. Switching from offense to defense to offense to defense every few seconds. Football doesn't even come close to touching the chaos of hockey.

 

[pappyline]

Absolutely agree. While I understand the argument "it's unfair to dock a player who never had a chance due to his team," I also think it's grossly unfair to ignore a player who grabbed his opportunities and converted them into Cups.

There are quite a few great players who *did* have the chance to win the Cup, but failed. Lindros' Flyers had enough talent. So do Thornton's Sharks. But those two players shrank when the going got tough. Great player on Great team =/ automatic Cup.

Players like Lidstrom and Potvin got it done in the most important games out there. They were integral cogs in Cup winning machines, and I think you absolutely have to give them credit for that. We *know* they can come through in the biggest of games, and I think it's entirely unfair to ignore that fact just because certain other players may not have had the opportunity.

Read post #120 and you might understand my point. Was al Arbour (the player) lucky to win several cups. Yes. Was bill gadsby unlucky. yes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The "Anybody" Argument

The common rationale for misfortune as opposed to good fortune is the

"It can happen to anybody," explanation. While true it also fails at answering the follow-up question which is "Then why did it happen to you?" after all depending on the type of event there may be a very great number of possible targets that "anybody" describes.

The lucky bounce, deflection etc. Matter of execution. Simply a question of getting or taking away position so that one eventaulity is favoured over the other or all the other elements that comprise favourable execution.

Injury. Two levels. Injuries happening and being ready to replace the injured player.

Trent McCleary almost lost his life blocking a shot from Eric Desjardins. Bad Luck or improper technique? Watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMpC0qWKGlg

Basic shot blocking. Head to the boards, legs to the middle of the rink. Block the shot with your legs. Legs to the boards you risk blocking the shot with your head or throat.

On ice awareness, body position, combined with the relevant skills, and other elements all play a role. Executing them properly is not a matter of luck.