Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[BraveCanadian]

Tragic misinterpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_air_disaster

Third attempt to take-off from a slush covered runaway.No urgency, not as if they absolutely had to get to there destination. Many things, definitely not luck. Choices and consequences.

If there is no such thing as luck.

Can you please prepare and train yourself with the ability to send me the lottery numbers for next week?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Real Life Corollary

Hilarious. Somehow you took what I said and construed it as me thinking that winning a Stanley Cup is luck. I thought more of you. Let's try again:

Suppose the Atlanta Flames drafted Larry Robinson instead. He's as good as he ever was (I'm not going to pretend I have some magical higher level of understanding and claim his coaches made him a star) but his team never goes anywhere. I'm guessing he ends up ranked, oh, about 60th on an all-time list. But he's in the 30 range right now, because he was on the Habs and won all those cups. Did luck win him the cups? No, his skills and the skills of his teammates did. But luck put him in Montreal in the first place. He could control his skills, but not what team he ended up on. Luck was probably worth about 30 spots on an all-time list for him.

Seriously, he might have meant an extra cup to Boston, or to Philly. Maybe another finals run for Buffalo or the Rangers. He's just one player though. He wouldn't have magically driven Vancouver, Atlanta, Minnesota or Washington to a cup. Do YOU think he would have?

To answer your question, of course Crosby would be more highly regarded. You described very similar resumes of offensive exploits and awards, then gave Crosby much better team accomplishments. Of course that's going to "break the tie" and give him at least a couple of spots on Ovechkin. Now take away a scoring title or a hart or two, then suddenly he doesn't look like as great an individual player. maybe then his team success that he drove only makes him about even with Ovechkin. Yeah, we're drowning in hypotheticals here, I know...



New York also acquired Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier, Billy Smith, Butch Goring, John Tonelli and Clark Gillies. Potvin played his part, just like the rest. And yes, it was a huge part. That team didn't win the cup by luck. But Potvin was fortunate to end up where a winner was being built. Like Robinson, he would not have made a contender out of a bottom feeder, all other things being equal.

Giving you the extreme benefit of the doubt that you have actually managed to prove that luck has a role in hockey or sports then there might be the following real life corollary.

The difference between Bill Gates, a worker - pizza delivery person and a homeless person is simply luck.

If a poll were taken then a worker and a homeless person might vote for luck while a Bill Gates might not. Given the number of homeless people and workers the majority view would that luck was the key element in one's destiny.

This would not make it so.

Back to sports. Given the plurality of those that do not achieve or win the sentiment that luck plays a part is understandable. But that does not make it so.

As I have stated previously the success of Potvin and Lidstrom in their respective situation, assuming that an interested party takes the time to do a proper forward based analysis, was not luck.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lottery

If there is no such thing as luck.

Can you please prepare and train yourself with the ability to send me the lottery numbers for next week?

A lottery never pretends to be anything but luck. Whether you are first in line or not to buy the ticket it does not matter.

A sports draft lottery is not the same. Having the opportunity to draft first does not come with the ability to draft and develop wisely.

 

[matnor]

A lottery never pretends to be anything but luck. Whether you are first in line or not to buy the ticket it does not matter.

A sports draft lottery is not the same. Having the opportunity to draft first does not come with the ability to draft and develop wisely.

But part of it is luck. As the draft lottery is today you know the exact probability that you will draft as, say, number one given where you finish and you can plan from that and optimize from that. But, at the very point the lottery is held there is a random event occuring that is out of your control.

I'm not discussing the ontological existence of luck or randomness. For instance, take the act of throwing a dice. The probability of getting a "one" is actually dependent on a number of different factors such as the angle of the hand while throwing the dice, the strength with which you throw, the ground the dice lands on etc. You can actually say that it is a deterministic process and not random. The point is that from the purpose of predicting the outcome even the person who throws the dice have no better idea than to assume that the probability of a "one" occuring is exactly 1/6. So, even though the process is actually not random we can, for all intents and purposes, view it as if it was random.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The difference between Bill Gates, a worker - pizza delivery person and a homeless person is simply luck.

If a poll were taken then a worker and a homeless person might vote for luck while a Bill Gates might not. Given the number of homeless people and workers the majority view would that luck was the key element in one's destiny.

This would not make it so.

Bill Gates is actually a good example. He is both a brilliant businessman and very lucky.

He was born into an affluent family that could afford to send him to Harvard where he spent his time dumpster diving to learn code from the printouts they discarded.

He was also very lucky to be in the right place at the right time and shrewd in using his father's contacts at IBM to middle man them DOS on the IBM PC.

Similarly with many incredibly rich people they made the most of their opportunity through their skill but the fact they had it in the first place was "luck".

Warren Buffett talks all the time about how lucky he was to have been born when he was, in the USA etc. And how those factors allowed him to make use of his ability in a way that he would not have been able to in a different age or country.

Taken a step further than that.. many rich people now are rich simply because they were born into the right family. Lucky them!

I think in most of the cases we are talking about here the players are individually great but they were also put into situations where they could be.. their talent allowed them to seize the opportunities but that doesn't mean there wasn't some luck along the way too.

 

[norrisnick]

Have you ever played hockey? Sensed the awareness that comes from the end of your stick or any other part of your stick? Players are extremely in tune with their stick - an extended part of their body.

At every level of hockey from intro on up, players are taught to control their stick and on ice awareness. All governing bodies from the local association to the NHL to the IIHF recognize that each player has to control his stick.

On the other hand even the most moderately intelligent two-three year old has mastered the "Not me" excuse. That adults use it and other adults actually believe it?

I'm sure he felt contact, but may not have realized that he speared and injured Lidstrom. Nick didn't miss a shift. Wing fans, not to mention his teammates, were baffled when it was suddenly announced that he'd miss games because of an injury.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

I'm sure he felt contact, but may not have realized that he speared and injured Lidstrom. Nick didn't miss a shift. Wing fans, not to mention his teammates, were baffled when it was suddenly announced that he'd miss games because of an injury.

Contact does not come from a void. A spear is different from a slash or a hook or ..................... you actually have a distinct spearing motion different from any other stick related motion. That Lidstrom did not realize the extent of the damage is no different than other players with injuries that are not instantaneously evident.

 

[Eisen]

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!

But to be drafted by a bottom feeder is, as contradicting as it sounds, luck. They can aquire players from a better position. They drafted Potvin, they improved but not drastically, next year with the 4th they take Gillies, another integral part of this dynasty and high in the second round Trottier. That certainly improved their chances to be a bottom feeder for qa while.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Drinking the Kool-Aid

Warren Buffett talks all the time about how lucky he was to have been born when he was, in the USA etc. And how those factors allowed him to make use of his ability in a way that he would not have been able to in a different age or country.

Benefit of perpetuating a myth. Why would Warren Buffett give anyone a free template to success? Doing so would undermine his riches.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

 

[redbull]

The difference between Bill Gates, a worker - pizza delivery person and a homeless person is simply luck.
---
As I have stated previously the success of Potvin and Lidstrom in their respective situation, assuming that an interested party takes the time to do a proper forward based analysis, was not luck.

The impact of luck is certainly valid, absolutely, but I'd say it's a MUCH SMALLER impact than many would believe, especially in sports. This is explained in more detail in the book Outliers (Malcolm Gladwell - highly recommened by the way) - here's an excerpt and review :

Their success is not exceptional or mysterious. It is grounded in a web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky—but all critical to making them who they are. The outlier, in the end, is not an outlier at all.

Suppose the Atlanta Flames drafted Larry Robinson instead.

Seriously, he might have meant an extra cup to Boston, or to Philly. Maybe another finals run for Buffalo or the Rangers. He's just one player though. He wouldn't have magically driven Vancouver, Atlanta, Minnesota or Washington to a cup. Do YOU think he would have?

To answer your question, of course Crosby would be more highly regarded. You described very similar resumes of offensive exploits and awards, then gave Crosby much better team accomplishments. Of course that's going to "break the tie" and give him at least a couple of spots on Ovechkin. Now take away a scoring title or a hart or two, then suddenly he doesn't look like as great an individual player. maybe then his team success that he drove only makes him about even with Ovechkin. Yeah, we're drowning in hypotheticals here, I know...

New York also acquired Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier, Billy Smith, Butch Goring, John Tonelli and Clark Gillies. Potvin played his part, just like the rest. And yes, it was a huge part. That team didn't win the cup by luck. But Potvin was fortunate to end up where a winner was being built. Like Robinson, he would not have made a contender out of a bottom feeder, all other things being equal.

I think there's a HUGE gap in your argument (not just yours, but some who assign too much success to luck)

The players that "helped" Potvin win a cup are highly regarded BECAUSE they won a cup - it's not vice-versa
It's backwards to look at success and then reverse-engineer your argument and determine who was "lucky."

If Charlie Simmer and Dave Taylor and (ironically) Butch Goring were better then maybe Marcel Dionne has a fighting chance?
or is it more about, if Dionne was better then he could have elevated the others in the post-season and become more than they were. Dionne's three best seasons (50+goals 130+pts) all were met with 1st round exits and Dionne had 1 goal in 10 total games.
(I don't mean to pick on Dionne as many often do but it's an important distinction from personal success to team success)

Maybe Dionne or Ovechkin or others are so hell-bent on personal success that they make decisions that allows them to get goals and assists but don't put the same effort without the puck?

It's dangerous to reward personal success in a team game. Sends the wrong message to the individuals.

It's wrong to undermine team success by pointing out areas of "luck" after the fact.

They are all part of the path to success.

Maybe Potvin on LA would have meant 4 cups to LA....Bossy Trottier would be Dionne and Simmer in 2010? hm?

and yet Lidström is less injured than all of the above. so I guess they also failed at controlling their destiny to an even larger extent than Lidström.

but to a certain extent I agree with you. I think his meticulous approach and brilliant hockey sense played a big role in this injury avoidance. but even then there is an important part of bad luck. and as others have stressed. since the spear seems to have been unintentional your point in this case is moot.

I know people want to believe in self madeness. that you make your own luck. I think this is a very large part of the north american culture. and I think it actually gives them more "luck" in that it in many cases drives you harder. seems to me that americans more often has that "killer instinct" than europeans if I may be prejudice.

but I also think this leads to an overvalue of peoples own influence and this has a negative effect in that it skews the judgement of those that fail and those that win. on the other side of the spectrum you have my country (Sweden) where it´s a negative to think that you are the reason for success (jantelagen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jante_Law). this has deveoped a great system for taking care of the more unfortunate but it also has negative influences on how people percieve themselves and the world.

so you have pros and cons with both and as always the truth is somewhere in between. I think we are moving in your direction for better or worse but to deny that chance plays a huge part in all parts of life is just wrong. then if you want to call it luck or fortune or just chance and how much you weigh it is up to you. but it´s there.

i think avoiding injury is a skill, an important one. gretzky definitely had it. lidstrom definitely does. for physical players like messier or trottier or potvin or w.clark or others - much harder to do. i don't hold injuries against them - their bodies just wear down over time.
---

very interesting post re: Jante_Law - probably a significant cultural difference than many of us in North America would not know!

not sure exactly how it impacts the NHL but I wonder if the humbled nature of many successful swedes is related to this. We don't see many outspoken, arrogant swedes, even among the most competitive and best hockey players (Salming, Sundin, Alfredsson, Zetterberg, Sedins - and many others)
----
I agree about the truth being somewhere in between but i attribute a very small part to "luck"

what's odd is that it's only looking backwards, AFTER a success event, do we assign "luck"

No one says Colorado was lucky to have signed Kariya and Selanne as UFAs (at a reduced rate) - not talked about because the team WON NOTHING that year.

Yet assigning luck to prior success completely reduces the accomplishment and totally unfair.
Like how the US Olympic team was so lucky in 1980.
Or was Kenny Morrow lucky to be on that team?
Or was he lucky to land on the Islanders in 1980?
Or were the Islanders lucky to add Morrow to their cup run(s)?
hmmm?

 

[overg]

Suppose the Atlanta Flames drafted Larry Robinson instead. He's as good as he ever was (I'm not going to pretend I have some magical higher level of understanding and claim his coaches made him a star) but his team never goes anywhere. I'm guessing he ends up ranked, oh, about 60th on an all-time list. But he's in the 30 range right now, because he was on the Habs and won all those cups. Did luck win him the cups? No, his skills and the skills of his teammates did. But luck put him in Montreal in the first place. He could control his skills, but not what team he ended up on. Luckwas probably worth about 30 spots on an all-time list for him.

I completely understand what you're saying, but . . . in your hypothetical, we never get to know how Robinson performs in the biggest games there are. So, in essence, he gets an "incomplete" or "not applicable" in the big game performance category (forgive me, I just read my daughters state standardized test scores, so categories of grading are on the brain).

There are two ways to look at that incomplete from an "all time best" perspective. You can either ignore it for everyone, thereby punishing those who scored very highly in it (e.g. Lidstrom and Potvin), or count it and 'punish' those who never had the chance (your hypothetical Robinson). Personally, I think it's fairer to look at every facet of what a player did to grade them, rather than skip certain categories.

If you skip Stanley Cup final performances, don't you have to skip "performance at age 40", because a lot of players didn't have the chance to do that. And then don't you have to eliminate everyone who played in the 80's, because they had a chance to score a lot more points than anyone else? Or anyone who played before the European influx, because they never had to face all of the world's best?

Point is, no two players ever have the exact same circumstances or opportunities. We can only look at what we have. And in the case of Lidstrom and Potvin, we've got some world class performances in championship games.

No one is suggesting that a Cup automatically makes any given player better than any other given player. Players can of course be non-factors in Cup runs, and players can be dominating in early round losses. Still, if I'm looking for a fourth line center in a Stanley Cup finals game, give me Kris Draper. If I'm looking for a number one defenseman, hell yes I'll take a Potvin or a Lidstrom. These players have performed when it counts, and I think all that Trottier is saying is that it's a bad idea to outright ignore that.

 

[unknown33]

Tragic misinterpretation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_air_disaster

Third attempt to take-off from a slush covered runaway.No urgency, not as if they absolutely had to get to there destination. Many things, definitely not luck. Choices and consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia_national_football_team

Gabon air disaster

A tragedy befell the Zambian national football team when the military plane (Zambian Air Force Buffalo DHC-5D, reg: AF-319) carrying the team to Senegal for a 1994 World Cup qualification match crashed in the late evening of 27 April 1993. The journey required three refuelling stops and at the first stop in Congo engine problems were noted. Despite this, the flight continued and a few minutes after taking off from a second stop in Libreville, Gabon one of the engines caught fire and failed. The pilot, who was tired from already having flown back from Mauritius earlier that day, then shut down the wrong engine, causing the plane to lose all power during the climb out of Libreville Airport and fall into the water 500m offshore.

All 30 passengers and crew, including 18 players, as well as the national team coach and support staff, were lost in the accident.The Chipolopolo's captain and later national team coach, Kalusha Bwalya, was not aboard the ill-fated flight as he was in the Netherlands playing for PSV at that time and had made separate arrangements to make his own way to Senegal to take part in the qualifier match. Also Charles Musonda, at the time playing for Anderlecht, wasn't involved in the plane crash being injured.

Were Charles Musonda and Kalusha Bwalya just lucky or did they make a right choice being injured/having to play a league game?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Consequences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia_national_football_team


Were Charles Musonda and Kalusha Bwalya just lucky or did they make a right choice being injured/having to play a league game?

Consequences of choices. Both chose to be elsewhere as clearly noted. Specifically they did not have to be elsewhere. Injured or not the player would have would have been committed to the league team elsewhere.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hilarious. Somehow you took what I said and construed it as me thinking that winning a Stanley Cup is luck. I thought more of you. Let's try again:

Suppose the Atlanta Flames drafted Larry Robinson instead. He's as good as he ever was (I'm not going to pretend I have some magical higher level of understanding and claim his coaches made him a star) but his team never goes anywhere. I'm guessing he ends up ranked, oh, about 60th on an all-time list. But he's in the 30 range right now, because he was on the Habs and won all those cups. Did luck win him the cups? No, his skills and the skills of his teammates did. But luck put him in Montreal in the first place. He could control his skills, but not what team he ended up on. Luck was probably worth about 30 spots on an all-time list for him.

Seriously, he might have meant an extra cup to Boston, or to Philly. Maybe another finals run for Buffalo or the Rangers. He's just one player though. He wouldn't have magically driven Vancouver, Atlanta, Minnesota or Washington to a cup. Do YOU think he would have?

To answer your question, of course Crosby would be more highly regarded. You described very similar resumes of offensive exploits and awards, then gave Crosby much better team accomplishments. Of course that's going to "break the tie" and give him at least a couple of spots on Ovechkin. Now take away a scoring title or a hart or two, then suddenly he doesn't look like as great an individual player. maybe then his team success that he drove only makes him about even with Ovechkin. Yeah, we're drowning in hypotheticals here, I know...



New York also acquired Mike Bossy, Bryan Trottier, Billy Smith, Butch Goring, John Tonelli and Clark Gillies. Potvin played his part, just like the rest. And yes, it was a huge part. That team didn't win the cup by luck. But Potvin was fortunate to end up where a winner was being built. Like Robinson, he would not have made a contender out of a bottom feeder, all other things being equal.

Wouldn't this statement indicate that team accomplishments are overemphasized when ranking players here?

 

[unknown33]

Consequences of choices.

Consequences that can not be foreseen in any form.
Things that happen by chance.

Luck.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Wouldn't this statement indicate that team accomplishments are overemphasized when ranking players here?

They obviously are.. but individual and team accomplishments are intertwined so how do you separate how much of the accomplishment was due to the individual and how much was due to the circumstances?

That is the really hard part. It is impossible to say for sure what Larry Robinson would have done in this case.. but we are all pretty sure he wouldn't have been as successful as he was in Montreal.

 

[pluppe]

Benefit of perpetuating a myth. Why would Warren Buffett give anyone a free template to success? Doing so would undermine his riches.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

yes, why would Warren Buffet ever do anything to "undermine his riches", or give anybody anything for free?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5115920.stm

 

[Epsilon]

Anyone find it ironic that an argument about the role of luck in terms of championships/playing on great teams has broken out in a thread on two players who are decidedly at the same far end of the spectrum in terms of team accomplishments? I could see this sort of discussion taking place in something like a Dionne vs. Yzerman thread (considering that was already brought up), but this one seems like a strange place for it to occur.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Foreseen

Consequences that can not be foreseen in any form.
Things that happen by chance.

Luck.

Consequences of having a tired pilot fly are definitely foreseeable by people involved in the decision making process.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Positives vs Negatives

Anyone find it ironic that an argument about the role of luck in terms of championships/playing on great teams has broken out in a thread on two players who are decidedly at the same far end of the spectrum in terms of team accomplishments? I could see this sort of discussion taking place in something like a Dionne vs. Yzerman thread (considering that was already brought up), but this one seems like a strange place for it to occur.

Positives vs negatives or comparing between two negatives is not the same as comparing between two with similar positive achievements achieved under significantly different circumstances.

 

[redbull]

Anyone find it ironic that an argument about the role of luck in terms of championships/playing on great teams has broken out in a thread on two players who are decidedly at the same far end of the spectrum in terms of team accomplishments? I could see this sort of discussion taking place in something like a Dionne vs. Yzerman thread (considering that was already brought up), but this one seems like a strange place for it to occur.

interesting observation - how lucky of you!

 

[norrisnick]

Contact does not come from a void. A spear is different from a slash or a hook or ..................... you actually have a distinct spearing motion different from any other stick related motion. That Lidstrom did not realize the extent of the damage is no different than other players with injuries that are not instantaneously evident.

FFS... again I'm using spear not as the jabbing motion of the entire stick, but for the fact that it was the toe of the blade that caught Lidstrom in the giblets.

 

[Trottier]

Anyone find it ironic that an argument about the role of luck in terms of championships/playing on great teams....

Is that what this is? Reads more like Freshman class-quality term papers on existentialism ("The Virtues of Luck 101" ).

 

[Epsilon]

Ask Patrick Sharp why he didn't or doesn't try to spear Chris Pronger, Zdeno Chara, Brooks Orpik, Dion Phaneuf or other d-men or forwards with similar established ice presence.

Throughout NHL history would a player of Patrick Sharp's caliber have tried to spear a Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Denis Potvin, Scott Stevens, Doug Harvey, Mark Messier, Eddie Shore, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Clarke, Bryan Trottier or others amongst hockey's elite?

The player or the team has to establish an ice presence making sure that certain things do not happen because lambs are embolded.

Right because none of those players have ever taken a spear, cross-check, knee-on-knee hit, sucker punch, high stick, or any other dirty action. Since they all "established an ice presence".

 

[Canadiens1958]

Detroit Red Wings

Right because none of those players have ever taken a spear, cross-check, knee-on-knee hit, sucker punch, high stick, or any other dirty action. Since they all "established an ice presence".

Claude Lemieux / Kris Draper. Patrick Sharp / Nicklas Lidstrom compare the reactions of the Red Wings collectively ..... few years later Darren McCarty vs Claude Lemieux.