kipwinger

Just imagine what we could do if we had a competent defense and special teams! As a number of people have been saying all season, we're a more talented team than our record suggests. This was just more evidence. Really like Jensen's game last night. Tatar looked good. I actually like the Sheahan, Tatar, Larkin line and think Sheahan will bag one soon if they keep it. When Helm gets back just add him to the 4th and let's keep rolling.

I don't think there's less talent. As a matter of fact I think there's more. I just think that in today's game, with goalies, systems, etc. being what they are, a guy who scores 55 points now is comparable to a guy who scored 70-75 a few years ago. The numbers are deflated, the talent isn't. In 2000-2001 Martin Lapointe scored a career high 57 points. Tomas Tatar's career high is 56 points. Anybody who thinks they're similarly offensively skilled is on crack.

Looking good so far in the first. I'm liking all the lines (except the 4th, but ho hum). It's amazing how much more offense you get when you play offensive players in intelligent ways.

Niemi was the difference maker. I'm actually not that mad about that game. We played much better than them for most of the game. Just a short bit there in the 2nd. If we can get our coaching straightened out I don't think we'll be down too long. I loved AA again tonight. This kid is ******* legit. Before tonight he had 7 points in 3 games, and he looked dominant at times tonight. Stand behind what I said before, he's got elite skill.

Can we PLEEEEEEEEAAAAAAASE replace Ott-Glendening-Miller with Jurco-Helm-Sheahan at the earliest available opportunity?

Sheahan's natural fit is as a 3rd line center. But since we've got 2,000 of those I don't really see how he fits on this team. Trade.

Dekeyser manned the PP point two years ago when our PP was good, so I'm not against it in theory. But I don't think anything is going to fix this dumpster fire until the coaching changes. I'd like to see us go back to the 1-3-1 PP moving forward (after Blashill is gone).

It's smart from a business standpoint. You don't want to discourage people in certain markets from watching. That's the idea, which I understand. Sports are a business.

This is all speculation on my part, but I think it's possible he came into the AHL with a bit of an ego after his junior career. I think a little bit of adversity went a long way with him. I'd hate to see him start thinking things were easy so early in his NHL career. Let him dominate next season and get picked for the All-Star game based on his play and not by default.

Using goals per game factors in unassisted goals though, which ruins the sample. Again, the best way to do it is average all players individual points per game. Or do the same for a random sample. Goals per game doesn't reflect assists accurately and given that most of Orr and Lidstrom's contribution were assists I think it would be a bad measure.

I'm glad Mantha isn't going. I want to see him keep that fire going. Don't want him resting on his laurels. He is definitely more deserving though. I just want to see him getting too much too soon by way of accolades.

See my edit above. You used goals per game, which I don't think is a good measure. It would be better to use points per game to identify differences in scoring. Especially considering both Lidstrom AND Orr were primarily assist machines.

I thought your numbers were the league averages for the era. When you adjust for era you generally use league averages for all players, or a random sample of players, to show that players in general scored more in one era or another. Talking about an individual player's averages doesn't tell you anything about the era. I misunderstood your initial post. Also, upon re-reading your post I think you'd want to use points per game to establish whether there was more scoring and not goals per game.

And adjust Lidstrom and Orr's career numbers for era and they converge to almost the exact same level of output. 1.39 points per game for Orr and 1.33 for Lidstrom. That argument works both ways.

Right, but I think that's unreasonable. Just like comparing modern medicine, training, etc. You can't change what already was. It's a question of "would you rather have Lidstrom (given his career) vs. Orr (given his career)". To me that's a no brainer. It's worthless to speculate about "if X happened" or "if Y didn't happen". If Lindros didn't have concussions he might be one of the best ever, but he did, so he wasn't. Lidstrom had less impact than Orr on any individual game, but he made a huge impact on WAY MORE games. To me that makes him the better defenseman overall.

I don't think this argues against Lidstrom being a dominant offensive defenseman. The fact that other people did it too doesn't mean he didn't. That's like saying Yzerman wasn't dominant in 1988 because Lemieux and Gretzky scored more that season. They were all, obviously, dominant. Lidstrom was a dominant offensive defenseman during his era regardless of what others did as well.

Lol. Got a little carried away with my Lidstrom love apparently.

I'm not talking about hockey writers though. I'm talking about me, if I were a GM, and which player I'd rather have. And I think I'd rather have the "2nd" best defenseman of all time for 1,500 games than the "Best" defenseman for 650. Lidstrom was still HUGELY impactful on a night by night basis, and you'd reap the benefits of that impact for more than twice as many games over his career.

You may be right here. Admittedly, I didn't see him play. But I've never heard his defensively game discussed in the same way that Lidstrom's was. So I'm largely going off that.

That said, I don't think a guy that stayed healthy and played a lot of games at a really high level should be penalized for being healthy. Would you rather have a guy who scored 1 point per game and played all 82, or a guy that scored 1.5 points per game but could only impact 62 games a season? There's a tremendous amount of value in having great players on the ice as often as possible. Statistically Orr is better in every offensive category. There's no question. But that doesn't do you any good when he's not playing. Lidstrom was less good statistically, but he was always there factoring into the play night after night. That's huge. Edit: Which is why I break this discussion down to "who would I rather have" vs. "who was better statistically". There's no debate if you're only discussing the latter.

In 1970-71, Orr's best statistical season, Phil Esposito scored 152 points, and had an astounding 550 shots. That's unheard of in today's game. Defensive systems and goalie evolution being what they are now (or in the 1990s), I don't think it's a stretch to say that it was easier to score in 1970 than it was when Lidstrom played. 4 of the top 5 winningest goalies in NHL history all played in Lidstrom's era. That's not a fluke.

Orr dazzles because of all the points he put up. Lidstrom didn't play in an era of high scoring yet still DOMINATED offensively from the blue line during his time. Additionally Lidstrom played elite defense. He was better than Erik Karlsson offensively, and better than anyone defensely, something Orr didn't really do. Orr was the first "defenseman who played like an extra forward". All things considered, if I'm drafting for today's game I'm drafting Lidstrom. I'd probably draft him in 1975 too. He was just too good at everything to take a back seat to anyone. Edit: Same logic I'd use to pick Crosby over Ovechkin in today's game. Ovechkin is exponentially better than basically every other winger in NHL history. Adjusted for era he's probably even better than that. But Crosby is better in multiple facets of the game, which gives him the nod in my opinion. Being better in many areas is more useful than being WAY better in one area.

Nice dodge. I've NEVER said that about any of the people you mentioned. You're really good at completely avoiding what other people say and turning it into something you can debate. I said AA has elite skill. His skating is DEFINITELY elite, and has scoring rate has been elite so far as well. Again, if you're skeptical based on the sample size then I understand and share your concerns about him keeping it up (I've said this a number of times already). But you seem to be doubling down on A) AA isn't an elite player (which I've never said), and B) that other people have been wrong about other players (which is irrelevant). But again, I suspect that's not the point. Obviously being snarky on the internet, regardless of what other people are saying, is your end game here.

I'd be pissed if we took anything other than a center or a defenseman in the draft. We've got wingers in spades. Especially if the organization insists on continuing to use AA and Larkin as wingers.

True, and quite a few guys haven't been the same after a sports hernia. Like I said before, it's good that it's happening so early in his career. But I'd be VERY cautious with him.