Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[seventieslord]

I think this actually raises an interesting question. Hardyvan asserts that "all modern players are superior to a certain extent;" thus, he believes Lidstrom to be superior to Orr as well as Potvin, a position which definitely has a lot of opposition.

The question is how far does it go? Is Mike Green superior to Bobby Orr? Duncan Keith? Brent Seabrook? Shea Weber? Where is the line of demarcation between "all modern players are superior" and x y z modern player isn't actually superior?

Is Patrick Kane better than Gretzky? Henrik Sedin better than Beliveau? Mike Richards better that Bobby Clarke?

How far does it go before the "greatness and superiority" of modern players does not surpass players from the past eras?

It shouldn't really matter if your goal is to compare players based on how dominant they were compared to their peers.

 

[Maupin Fan]

It shouldn't really matter if your goal is to compare players based on how dominant they were compared to their peers.

Absolutely.

That was more directed at Hardyvan as I am curious as to how he ranks players and who he believes is better than who based solely on the fact that they have played 20, 30, 40 years later than another, rather than what they actually accomplished in their own era against their peers.

I believe his reasoning is a slippery slope.

 

[Regal]

I think this actually raises an interesting question. Hardyvan asserts that "all modern players are superior to a certain extent;" thus, he believes Lidstrom to be superior to Orr as well as Potvin, a position which definitely has a lot of opposition.

The question is how far does it go? Is Mike Green superior to Bobby Orr? Duncan Keith? Brent Seabrook? Shea Weber? Where is the line of demarcation between "all modern players are superior" and x y z modern player isn't actually superior?

Is Patrick Kane better than Gretzky? Henrik Sedin better than Beliveau? Mike Richards better that Bobby Clarke?

How far does it go before the "greatness and superiority" of modern players does not surpass players from the past eras?

I think the idea that players are superior today is overblown. I'd say the average player is better conditioned, a better skater, etc than the average player of past eras and there's probably a greater number of elite players simply from the larger talent pool of population and other countries to draw from. But the way we've seen top end players perform over the years and over different eras, like Bourque being an All Star in his first and last season, Howe being top 3 in scoring at 40, Gretzky being top 3 in his late 30s in the dead puck era, etc. I think it shows how good they are, how they're able to adapt, and how the basics of the game haven't changed nearly as much as some want to believe. Kane better than Gretzky? I firmly believe that if a prime Gretzky was plopped down in the NHL today without growing up with different training methods or equipment or coaching, he would still easily lead the league in points.

Obviously it starts to break down the further back you go, and the game 100 years ago was entirely different, but while some players' games seem more suited to the era they played in, I think all the stars from at least expansion would still be successful today. Perhaps goaltending would be harder to adapt, as it's involved the most changes in recent years, but even 80s guys like Vernon, Fuhr and Vanbiesbrouck were able to be successful into the mid-90s

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think the idea that players are superior today is overblown. I'd say the average player is better conditioned, a better skater, etc than the average player of past eras and there's probably a greater number of elite players simply from the larger talent pool of population and other countries to draw from. But the way we've seen top end players perform over the years and over different eras, like Bourque being an All Star in his first and last season, Howe being top 3 in scoring at 40, Gretzky being top 3 in his late 30s in the dead puck era, etc. I think it shows how good they are, how they're able to adapt, and how the basics of the game haven't changed nearly as much as some want to believe. Kane better than Gretzky? I firmly believe that if a prime Gretzky was plopped down in the NHL today without growing up with different training methods or equipment or coaching, he would still easily lead the league in points.

Obviously it starts to break down the further back you go, and the game 100 years ago was entirely different, but while some players' games seem more suited to the era they played in, I think all the stars from at least expansion would still be successful today. Perhaps goaltending would be harder to adapt, as it's involved the most changes in recent years, but even 80s guys like Vernon, Fuhr and Vanbiesbrouck were able to be successful into the mid-90s

I agree, just because players today on average are stronger and faster doesn't mean they are better.
Look at Gretzky, he wasn't anywhere near the strongest or fastest. Hell, he wasn't even on par in pure physical talent with most of the top forwards he played against yet...well you know.
Same with Orr, he may of been ahead of time but you'd have a hard time convincing me that that time has come to pass. I mean we still haven't seen anyone come along that comes close to dominating all area's of the ice like Orr did.

Just because someone is a 6'4" 220lb speed skater, that doesn't mean he's a great or even a good hockey player.

 

[steve141]

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.

There is just no basis for saying that individual player performance equals number of cups won. You also need to be lucky enough to be on the best team.

Consider fourth-line player Tomas Kopecky. He played his first full season in 2008, then got injured and missed the playoffs. Still, he got his name on the Cup. This year, he was a healthy scratch for several times during the playoffs, but Chicago still won. So, in three years he has won two cups despite barely making the line-up. Skill or luck?

Performing great during playoffs takes skill, winning takes a good team.

 

[steve141]

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.

Luck is having good things happen to you because of circumstances that you have no control of. Scoring a goal takes skill. Getting drafted by a good team takes luck.

 

[Regal]

There is just no basis for saying that individual player performance equals number of cups won. You also need to be lucky enough to be on the best team.

Consider fourth-line player Tomas Kopecky. He played his first full season in 2008, then got injured and missed the playoffs. Still, he got his name on the Cup. This year, he was a healthy scratch for several times during the playoffs, but Chicago still won. So, in three years he has won two cups despite bary making the line-up. Skill or luck?

Performing great during playoffs takes skill, winning takes a good team.

But he's not talking about the Kopecky's of the world, or the Arbour's, as another poster brought up. He's talking about the best players on cup winning teams. I see a lot of people say someone is "lucky" to be on a great team, ignoring the fact that great players are largely responsible for making the team great.

Now obviously there's some luck involved along the way each year, and some guys are just never surrounded by the right collection of talent, and I wouldn't hold someone like Bourque accountable for not winning a cup with the Bruins, when he did pretty much everything he could to get them there. But I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the greats have won cups in their primes. You look at a guy like Gretzky, and yes, the Oilers managed to draft some great players to put around him. But how much of their success was also due to learning from Gretzky, having him take the burden of responsibility, and being able to grow and tailor their games around his?

One example used was Larry Robinson playing exactly the same for the Devils, and being stuck on crappy teams. But you have to take into account how he would affect the organization as well. Now, it's possible he doesn't become the same player without the coaching and mentorship he got in Montreal, but assuming he's the same player, how much better does he make the defensemen around him? How much better are the forwards with his offense from the backend? Perhaps he slowly makes the team around him better, they eventually make the playoffs, and grow as players with more experience. Perhaps the team can sell better coaches and GMs on an up and coming team, and further improve.

Players don't exist in a vacuum. The truly great players have an affect on the team that goes beyond simple statistics.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Huh?

1.Wayne Gretzky
2.Bobby Orr
3.Mario Lemieux[1]
4.Maurice Richard
5.Ray Bourque
6.Jean Beliveau
7.Patrick Roy
8.Guy Lafleur
9.Bobby Hull
10.Doug Harvey
11.Mark Messier
12.Bobby Hull
13.Martin Brodeur
14.Terry Sawchuk[2]
15.Jacques Plante
16.Gordie Howe
17.Phil Esposito
18.Howie Morenz
19.Paul Coffey
20.Jaromir Jagr[3]
21.Mike Bossy
22.Eddie Shore
23.Glenn Hall
24.Stan Mikita[4]
25.Larry Robinson
26.Ken Dryden
27.Denis Potvin
28.Ted Lindsay
29.Red Kelly
30.Bobby Clarke
31.Frank Mahovlich
32.Eric Lindros
33.Milt Schmidt
34.Henri Richard
35.Bryan Trottier
36.Dickie Moore
37.Bernie Geoffrion
38.Newsy Lalonde
39.Syl Apps
40.Bill Durnan
41.Charlie Conacher
42.Marcel Dionne
43.Steve Yzerman
44.Tony Esposito
45.Joe Malone
46.Chris Chelios[5]
47.Dit Clapper#
48.Tim Horton
49.Brett Hull
50.Bill Cook
51.Jari Kurri
52.Johnny Bucyk
53.George Hainsworth
54.Gilbert Perreault
55.Serge Savard
56.Dominik Hasek
57.Peter Stastny
58.Max Bentley
59.Brad Park
60.Nels Stewart
61.King Clancy
62.Darryl Sittler
63.Joe Sakic
64.Grant Fuhr
65.Bill Cowley
66.Busher Jackson
67.Ted Kennedy
68.Andy Bathgate
69.Pierre Pilote
70.Yvan Cournoyer
71.Bernie Parent
72.Turk Broda
73.Frank Boucher
74.Cy Denneny
75.Aurel Joliat
76.Toe Blake
77.Frank Brimsek
78.Elmer Lach
79.Dave Keon
80.Brian Leetch
81.Earl Seibert
82.Doug Bentley
83.Borje Salming
84.Georges Vezina
85.Charlie Gardiner
86.Clint Benedict
87.Billy Smith
88.Alex Delvecchio
89.Babe Dye
90.Lorne Chabot
91.Sid Abel
92.Bob Gainey
93.Johnny Bower
94.Sprague Cleghorn
95.Mike Gartner
96.Norm Ullman
97.Sweeney Schriner
98.Joe Primeau
99.Babe Pratt
100.Jack Stewart
101.Bill Gadsby
102.Frank Nighbor

This was not the THN list. It looks kinda like it, but Gordie was 3rd, not 16th. And Brodeur was not on it at all. Someone's been messing with Wikipedia.

thanks for shedding light on that, I was pretty sure that even those guys at THN wouldn't have put Hull and Howe so low

 

[Up the Irons]

Very good post imo.
To me, Potvin was the best Dman behind Orr in his era and Lidstrom was the best behind Bourque in his era.
Potvin's peak over about a 3-4 year period was higher than what Bourque or Lidstrom reached but both Bourque and Lidstrom's peaks were like 10-12 years long which is both ridiculous and rare.

My personal top 10 all-time Dmen are
#1 Orr
#2 Harvey
#3 Shore
#4 Bourque
#5 Lidstrom
#6 Potvin
#7 Robinson
#8 Chelios
#9 Coffey
#10 Park

(I don't have Kelly listed in my top 10 for Dmen simply because quite frankly, it's not really known just how much he actually did at that position.)

the one guy that always get forgotten about (for obvious reasons) is Fetisov. IMO, the big Russian, who is considered the greatest Russian player of alltime, should probably plug in somewhere between 3 and 6. I never saw Shore, but no one is going to convince me that Bourque was any better the Fetisov.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It looks like a used named Alaney2k edited it just today, and made these weird changes in the top-25 of the list. I have never edited wikipedia but I tried to make it go back to the way it was before he tampered with it, but I couldn't figure out how to do it, possibly because there had been a few other edits since then already. I'm sure someone else will do it.

LOL, who would bother vandalizing the THN Top 100 list?

My favorite part of the list is that it now has 102 names on it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the idea that players are superior today is overblown. I'd say the average player is better conditioned, a better skater, etc than the average player of past eras and there's probably a greater number of elite players simply from the larger talent pool of population and other countries to draw from. But the way we've seen top end players perform over the years and over different eras, like Bourque being an All Star in his first and last season, Howe being top 3 in scoring at 40, Gretzky being top 3 in his late 30s in the dead puck era, etc. I think it shows how good they are, how they're able to adapt, and how the basics of the game haven't changed nearly as much as some want to believe. Kane better than Gretzky? I firmly believe that if a prime Gretzky was plopped down in the NHL today without growing up with different training methods or equipment or coaching, he would still easily lead the league in points.

Agree 100%. Add Mario Lemieux absolutely owning the NHL when he was healthy enough to play in 2001. I think a "time machined" Gretzky would take a little while to adapt to the new rules, but then he'd dominate.

 

[Dark Shadows]

the one guy that always get forgotten about (for obvious reasons) is Fetisov. IMO, the big Russian, who is considered the greatest Russian player of alltime, should probably plug in somewhere between 3 and 6. I never saw Shore, but no one is going to convince me that Bourque was any better the Fetisov.

Bourque was every bit as good as Fetisov. In their peaks, I often tell people who did not see Fetisov play pre-NHL that his peak was as good as Potvin or Bourque's. Comparing those 3 players best 5 years woulkd see them all very closely cropped.

The problem with Fetisov in comparison to Bourque/Potvin is that Fetisov's effectiveness was just about over by age 30. Bourque has longevity surpassing anyone short of Gordie Howe in effectiveness, and Potvin by age 30-35 was often injured, but still extremely valuable on a per game basis. Fetisov once he hit the NHL did not adapt well, and his time after the CSKA does not compare well.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think the idea that players are superior today is overblown. I'd say the average player is better conditioned, a better skater, etc than the average player of past eras and there's probably a greater number of elite players simply from the larger talent pool of population and other countries to draw from. But the way we've seen top end players perform over the years and over different eras, like Bourque being an All Star in his first and last season, Howe being top 3 in scoring at 40, Gretzky being top 3 in his late 30s in the dead puck era, etc. I think it shows how good they are, how they're able to adapt, and how the basics of the game haven't changed nearly as much as some want to believe. Kane better than Gretzky? I firmly believe that if a prime Gretzky was plopped down in the NHL today without growing up with different training methods or equipment or coaching, he would still easily lead the league in points.

Obviously it starts to break down the further back you go, and the game 100 years ago was entirely different, but while some players' games seem more suited to the era they played in, I think all the stars from at least expansion would still be successful today. Perhaps goaltending would be harder to adapt, as it's involved the most changes in recent years, but even 80s guys like Vernon, Fuhr and Vanbiesbrouck were able to be successful into the mid-90s

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

 

[Briere Up There*]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

Absurd. The Junior A comment is ridiculous, and not worth a rebuttal. Joe Sakic scored 100 pts as an old man, Jagr scored 54 goals and nearly won the Art Ross in the Nuu-NHL (As Trottier likes to say). Lemieux easily outperformed both these players in 2001.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Absurd. Joe Sakic scored 100 pts as an old man, Jagr scored 54 goals and nearly won the Art Ross in the Nuu-NHL (As Trottier likes to say). Lemieux easily outperformed both these players in 2001.

Not absurd at all. I don't think you understand what I'm saying and that's fine.

 

[Briere Up There*]

appropriate avatar

Not absurd at all. I don't think you understand what I'm saying and that's fine.

 

[revolverjgw]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

Your basic point is sound, but you're absurdly overestimating the difference in "eras" and the rate of change. Of course neither of us can prove it, but I'd be amazed if any reasonable person agrees with your evaluations.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

In many sports, but not hockey.

Gordie Howe played against Dit Clapper & Wayne Gretzky. That's a 30 year plus spread. But you think Mario 9 years later would be a 60-70 point player? Considering the rule changes, I'd say Mario in 2010 would actually score more.

 

[Maupin Fan]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

Wow.

 

[Epsilon]

No kidding. The idea that player evolution occurs that quickly is just absurd.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Thanks? I fail to see what my avatar has to do with anything lol.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree with everything you said except the bolded. Anyone who knows anything about sports or just how things change over time, knows that's honestly not possible. I'd go as far as to say, that straight out of a time machine from the 80's, Gretzky would not be better than your average Junior A player. Doesn't mean they're better than Gretzky though, nor does it mean anyone in the NHL today is for that matter. The fact is, even if you took that Lemieux that came back in 2001, and put him in a time machine to the league today, he'd more than likely be a 60-70 point player in the right situation. Things change over time.

I can't tell if this post is snark or not, but I'll play along.

What if you plopped the Ray Bourque from 1980 into 2001? Would he look like a peewee player?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

In many sports, but not hockey.

Gordie Howe played against Dit Clapper & Wayne Gretzky. That's a 30 year plus spread. But you think Mario 9 years later would be a 60-70 point player? Considering the rule changes, I'd say Mario in 2010 would actually score more.

Yes. If Mario had continued to play from then on and not aged, yes. I didn't know it was arguable that if you drop players from decades ago straight out of a time machine into today's game that they'd be outmatched?

 

[Briere Up There*]

Wait, what?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

No kidding. The idea that player evolution occurs that quickly is just absurd.

Oh boy. Every year, the league as whole gets better. Every year player's as a whole get better (technically speaking). The proof lies, in simply watching games from different eras which I do quite frequently. I'm a huge fan of the history of the game, make no mistake about it. However, I also played, and know many people who play hockey at a high level, and have a good understanding of sports in general. What I said is really not crazy at all. Again, Gretzky is the 2nd best player of all-time and with today's advantages likely would still be the best player.