toby91_ca

You're right, the Wings' two cup wins in 1950 and 1954 were the only times in NHL history that the cup was won in OT in game 7.

What kind of crazy math did you use to get 1.33 for Lidstrom?? 1.39 for Orr is his career average, so I'm assuming you'd bump up Lidstrom's to consider the higher scoring era Orr played in.....my math shows 0.81 for Lidstrom doing that.

I stayed away from using the word "overrated" because I didn't want to make it sound like I thought he wasn't a good player. But I do agree, he is overrated. The best player in the world can be overrated, so that's how I'll try to ensure I'm not slamming the guy. He's a great player, not just good, he is great (having a down year though). I do think he's overrated though, purely because he's rated so high be at least some people. Edit: just a couple sources in terms of where Toews has been rated: Toronto Sun, Oct 2016 rated him #8, #2 the year before. TSN rated him (Oct 16) as #7 and the following for each year prior: 2, 2, 3, 6, 8, 3....I'm mean...really?

Couple things: Lidstrom NEVER dominated offensively, he was one of the better offensive dmen during much of his career, but he never dominated. The better argument is consistency and longevity I suppose. He did finish top 2 scoring for dmen for 5 years in a row, but never lead anyone else by that significant of a margin. With Orr, dominate is probably not a strong enough word, Gretzky is the only player that dominated the competition like Orr. Orr lead dmen is scoring for 7 straight years with the following points between him and #2 in those years: 9, 76, 76, 44, 47, 40, 59...that's domination. It's also important to understand that 44 more points isn't Orr scoring 170pts and #2 scoring 126, it's Orr scoring 100 and number 2 scoring 56...he was doubling #2's output a lot of years. Scoring was definitely higher in Orr's day, but not as significant as most would think (during Orr's career, GPG was 6.3, during Lidstrom's it was 5.7). Edit: also, I can only go by what I've heard and read and saw people say, but suggesting Orr was all offensive an no defense is false, he was known as one of, if not the best defensively during his time as well.

Well, that's your opinion, but I'm pretty sure most of the experts, when they consider who is the best of all time, are using the later as a way to measure and equate. Otherwise, it's clear by watching video that Howe could not make an NHL roster in today's NHL, yet he's still up there on the all-time best list.

That's good, I was going to say that I can't figure out why some continue to hold him in such high regard. He's a great player, but there have been people arguing that he's the best player in the game...I just couldn't go nearly that far. And this year, I get that he's way more than just a point producer, but you need to at least produce some points to be considered an all star (especially a forward)...and he's producing next to nothing this year + on top of all that, CHI already has 3 others going. Crosby wasn't picked last year, which looked questionable at the time, but even worse by the end of the year.....so if they have no problem not picking him, why is there such a need to put Toews in the game? Edit: I should have asked, is there the same sort of aura around Toews in the US as there is in Canada? All the discussions I hear around him being the best or one of the best are from Canadian sources, so perhaps he's not played up quite as much in the US.

This doesn't make a lot of sense though, doesn't this mean we should never really have a discussion of best of all-time since the prior eras wouldn't really have a chance. Does this mean Crosby is the best player of all-time? Or is Gretzky still in the conversation since his domination against the rest of the league was so wide? I think it's fair to discount some raw stats for eras, but you do need to factor in qualifiers. I could say that it would be scary to see Crosby playing in the mid-80s against those goalies....but that's not fair...why would he have modern equipment while the goalies are still stuck with their 80s equipment? I know the goalie position has evolved quite a bit beyond just equipment as well though. Point being, you can look at 100pts in 1985 not meaning the same as 100pts today to compare a player, but the best way to assess "best of all time" is to assess how each stacks up against their competition at the time.

I was going to say the same thing. The Norris, along with the Vezina tend to more subjective awards and more based on reputation and earning your stripes first. Some years there are clear winners no matter how you look at it though. One can argue that Lidstrom should have won earlier, but the same arguments can be made later on that he won some more on reputation and some of the younger talents not yet paying their dues.

TSN did a mock top players of all time list not that long ago....spawned by Jagr getting close or passing Messier on the scoring list. They had Jagr at 13th I believe, Ovechkin was 15th, Messier was around 11th, Crosby with 8th. I know Gretzky was number 1 and I think Orr was 2 and Lemieux was 3, but can't remember that exactly. I don't remember anything beyond that, but Howe was still there somewhere in the top 10. I can't remember if Lidstrom was on the list, but I'm sure he was.

I think there is a lot of overvaluing here, perhaps different if we were discussing this 5 years ago. Draft picks are more valuable than they've ever been. It's very difficult to get a 1st round pick out of someone (especially with a rental). Don't forget, Yandle was traded along with another player + a 4th round pick and the 1st round pick coming back was conditional. I also don't think the Wings have any players being discussed above in Yandle's position (still relatively young, Dman generating 50+ points a year and on a very friendly contract).

Well, in his short career, his team won 2 cups and he was the MVP both times.

It's very hard to judge this without bias. Ask anyone over 50 and they'll laugh and wonder why the question is even being asked. There are more than a few that would place Orr as the best player of all time, not just the best defenseman. I am too young to have ever seen Orr play live, but the highlights tell a pretty good story. Other than that, going simply by stats and awards, its tough to argue. Orr has won the Norris is every year he was eligible other than his rookie year in which he won the Calder. I don't count his last 3 seasons as he only played 36 combined games over those seasons. So, after winning the Calder, he went on to win the Norris 8 straight years before having to retire. Combine that with 3 Hart trophies, 2 Art Ross trophies and 2 Conn Smythes. The only argument perhaps is whether his shortened career opens the door. I wonder what Don Cherry would say if you asked him

But 11 goals in 40 games isn't exactly what everyone around here expects from him.

Maybe extrapolating 5 goals is a bit premature at this point. He's not on pace for 20+ goals though, his gpg would pace to that over a full 82 games, but he won't play 82 games...while you mention he's on pace for that even though missing 15 games, that's not the case. I have no issues with his production, he's been fine, others may be disappointed if their expectations were unreasonable, which I'm sure there are a few of those around.

Honestly, I'd rather play a team that has been rested for 3 days than playing a team that only rested for 1 day....they may be a bit flat.

Leafs have a better record

I'm old enough, but wasn't a fan until 1990, so I've never experienced this. Back when I was young, I was an Oilers fan (so in the 80s, certainly didn't experience this with them). Since there was no natural team to cheer for where I grew up, in my very young age, I decided to cheer for the best at the time...I've evolved since then. My switch to the Wings coincided with the entrance of Fedorov and bit by the departure of Messier to the Rangers (though that was 1 year later).

It's definitely not looking good right now. 2nd worst record in the East and only slightly better than the worst (3 more points in 2 extra games)

Maybe I'm over simplifying, but I don't get why we need complicated stats on this. Isn't it obvious that the vast majority of goals will be scored from a very short distance? It isn't the 70s or 80s anymore, you can't score on an NHL goalie from far out unless they can't see the puck. This is both due to evolution of the position and how they cover the in addition to equipment. The only goals going in from the point, for example, are deflections (their will be the rare one slipping through of course). Those deflections should be included in the group of goals scored from short distance. The other way to get a shot in from the point is via screening the goalie....which is what everyone has been trying their best to do for years now....goalies will normally stop the pucks if they can see them.

I'm not sure why anyone would have been excited about a 5th round draft pick, especially because he was likely picked even that high because of his size.

Makes sense? I think it is one of the most idiotic firings in history....maybe overplaying that a bit...but I think it's makes no sense. He just lead the team to their best finish in franchise history, then gets fired 20 games into the season, to be replaced by a guy with 0 NHL coaching experience.

Maybe. Goalies don't tend to make as much as elite centres for whatever reason. It's the most important position in the game....teams can go from nothing to something with a great goalie. No single other player could do that. My guess is it's because it's more of a streaky position, good goalies come and go and maybe there is the thought another guy could be just as good. Lundqvist makes a lot, 8.5 and it think there are a few at 7, a handful in the 6s, few more in the 5s and the rest below that.

Looks like Crosby still has some gas in the tank (14 goals in 14 games) and still the best ppg stat in the league. Missing the first 6 games may end up proving too much in the long run though in terms of total points. I'd look at Crosby a bit different as well though, he took a bit of a discount when he signed his deal and it was a 12 year deal I think, which aren't possible anymore. With Burns, it's tough to say "yeah, but if everyone else signed today, they'd be getting more." Firstly, cap hasn't moved much in the past few years, it's not like every other defenseman signed their deals ages ago. The reality is that (ignoring Subban), there are only about 5 or 6 other guys in the league that make within $1M per year what he makes (speaking D only of course). Everyone else is about $2M or more off. Which I don't have much of a problem with because he's one of the best, not sure if he's the best, but one of the best and contracts will fluctuate, so I'm fine with that. The more curious aspect to me is that it's for 8 years, he'll be 40 by the end of the last year. Maybe by then the $8M won't look like much, or maybe it will look like a massive cap hit for a guy that doesn't have much left.

I think it's further proof that guys don't need to go to UFA anymore to get paid. You are seeing very few guys take "discounts" anymore. I think a big function of that is the CBA and the escrow the players need to deal with. I think they are taking the money they can get, when they can get it. This honestly looks like a lot of money to me. This puts him as the 2nd highest paid defenseman in the league. There are a few guys in the $7-7.5M range, but most are $6M or below. You have Subban at $9M which just seems huge to me, was $1.5M clear of #2 and still $1M clear. I don't have a problem with Burns being the 2nd highest paid, but it's for 8 years and he's 31. Not saying huge overpayment or anything, but certainly no discount taken.

I'd have to go back and check....they did a mock "who would each team protect" forecast earlier.