Lidstrom

[Doc Holiday 0]

Did you completely miss like a decade of hockey or something? When was the league defense? Have you missed all of the meetings the past years covering goalie movement, goalie pad restrictions, the removal of the two-line pass, more offense, less obstruction, etc..... Were you in hibernation or something?

The league was dead offensively for years. I'm sure you can google it and get up to speed.

Pardon me for misreading.

You say offensively minded teams have been defeated. Well the flip side of that coin will show you that so have the defensively minded ones the past few years. You see New Jersey or Minnesota hoisting the Cup lately? I don't think so.

I'm not saying your team has to be strictly defensive minded. You, however, said that a team has to have an offensive mind to win. The Lighting come to mind...

Detroit has 2 of the most offensively prolific guys on offense in Dats and Z.

Selke nominees.

2 of the most offensive D men in Nick and Rafs. Another in Kronner. Fantastic 2nd and 3rd line offensive support in Homer, Franzen, Clearly, Hudler, Flip, Samuellson. Yes, these players play into Babcock's system of strong individual and team defense. But stop kidding yourselves. These guys are offensive weapons. The Wings just happen to be good at both ends of the rink. But they are always one of the top offensive teams in the league.

That isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact Lidstrom steps toe to toe with the best offensive players in the league and boasts a plus minus of 40, and getting 70 points in the process. Don't forget this is against a very stacked Western conference.

How can anybody gloss over the fact that the wings usually finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd in offense every single year?

I'm not, but you seem to harp on it as if that is the only picture. Buffalo was able to get only two goals less than Detroit last season and didn't even make the playoffs.

All this weight is placed upon Nick's defense being the key and defense, defense, defense wins it for you.

But we don't have to! You explained how Lidstrom is also a potent offensive player as well! Of course we can forget the fact Detroit had the fewest goals against this season and the whole +40 rating because apparently only offense matters. Tell that to the Pens.

That argument would be more suitable if Nick played for New Jersey. The Wings are an offensive juggernaut. Don't forget that. Without Dats, Z and Rafs. The Wings would be a 2nd tier team with the best Dman on the planet. They wouldn't win championships and Nick wouldn't have the numbers he does. Never forget how much OFFENSE plays a gigantic role in us winning.

Buffallo had offense. Where were they in the playoffs?

Lidstrom is not only a defenseman he is a point getter as well. He stops the Ovenchkins and Crosby's and gets assists while doing it. Ovenchkin can't solve Lidstrom and considering Lidstrom can smother so much offense (like mr Ovie) that is why he is so valuable to a team.

[Opie 308]

Why is it when WAS gets a bench minor AO is the first person in the box to serve it?

Now that may just be bad coaching, but he can hit, he can score, he can create offense, but he cannot play D and one of my criteria for best player would be an all around game. Now having said that, there is no way I put an all around guy like Cleary ahead of AO, because AO's offense is so freakishly good that in a comparison in order to overtake him as #1 the player would also have to have a freakishly good skill and also be more well rounded.

Careful this is laden with my opinion, and I am not calling anyone else's opinion wrong

1. Lids - D, PP, PK, 5-5, 5-3, 3-5 this guy does it all at the highest level.

2. Z - D, PP, PK, 5-5, 5-3, 3-5, face offs, set up man, shooter, creater, stickhandling

3. Dats - D, PP, 5-5, Face offs, Stickhandling, set up man, shooter, creater PK (not used a lot but in the post season showed he is great there)

*Call me a homer, I am fine with that, but looking at my criteria who in the league has a better all around game than those 3, maybe Iginla, maybe Thornton.*

4. Iginla - D, PP, Hits, shooter, creater, tough sob, does the things it takes to carry a team on his back, If some one wanted him in my top 3 over the others (except Lids) I can see that easily! Does everything for his team

5. Ovechkin - PP (#1 PP weapon in the league in my book), 5-5, great shoot, great creativity, underrated set up man, Like I said his freakish abilities on offense make up for his lack of D, don't get me wrong the kid plays D, he is not a cherry picker, but he is not a shutdown forward like the three above him.

6. Thornton - D, PP, shooter, creater, tough sob, Similar to Iginla there are nights when this is the only guy who shows up on his team, he makes All-Stars out of Cheechoo and Michalek, NUFF SAID! What separates him from Iginla is Iginla hits more and will throw down if needed.

7. Crosby, PP, PK(solid not great, but solid), 5-5, 5-3, great playmaker, decent shot, underrated one timer, When (not if) this kid gets his defensive legs under him he will vault to #1 no doubt in my mind, the only question would be if AO brings his D game along then their would be a tie for 1 in my book.

[NeverForgetMac25 483]

Nice way to gloss over that statistic Mac. 62 goals is freakish. That'd be like Nick bagging 100pts. It's a monster number. And that's all AO has done since coming into the league. He puts up monster numbers.

He's a near impossible offensive force. He has proven he can carry a team on his shoulders. A team not near as good as the Wings with not near as good a supporting cast.

It's easy to just tag Nick as the best defensive player in the league. Well, frankly AO is the best offensive player in the league. Which is more important?

In today's NHL can anybody say what wins you more games? Is it offense or defense?

Like I said in the other thread. Given the current nature of the game with increased offense, more restriction on goalies and defenseman I am going with the guy who provides more offense than any other player in the league. Is arguably one of the best 1 on 1 players in the league. Is clearly the league's best goal scorer.

If I start a team today and it isn't chock full of superstars and I only get 1 top 10 player. I take AO over Nick.

It has nothing to do with glossing over the statistic. This is about people who rank him as high as he is simply because of that single stat. My point is, if AO puts up 40 goals last year, are we even having this discussion? I don't think you got my reasoning.

[egroen 384]

How on earth did Detroit manage to beat Pittsburgh this year -- or Anaheim beat Ottawa last year? Crosby/Malkin/Hossa and Heatley/Spezza/Alfredsson are offensive juggernauts that blew anything the West had to offer out of the water.

Call me crazy, but I think "defence" had more than a little to do with it.

The 80's are an abberation. Exciting hockey yes, but for 80% of the NHL's existence it has been defence-first all the way.

How many years now has it been now that a defence-first or traping team has made it to the finals or won the whole thing?

Edited September 4, 2008 by egroen

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Nice way to gloss over that statistic Mac. 62 goals is freakish. That'd be like Nick bagging 100pts. It's a monster number. And that's all AO has done since coming into the league. He puts up monster numbers.

He's a near impossible offensive force. He has proven he can carry a team on his shoulders. A team not near as good as the Wings with not near as good a supporting cast.

It's easy to just tag Nick as the best defensive player in the league. Well, frankly AO is the best offensive player in the league. Which is more important?

In today's NHL can anybody say what wins you more games? Is it offense or defense?

Like I said in the other thread. Given the current nature of the game with increased offense, more restriction on goalies and defenseman I am going with the guy who provides more offense than any other player in the league. Is arguably one of the best 1 on 1 players in the league. Is clearly the league's best goal scorer.

If I start a team today and it isn't chock full of superstars and I only get 1 top 10 player. I take AO over Nick.

Thats a terrible way to look at it GST. Basically what you're saying is that Paul Coffey is a much better defenseman than Lidstrom, simply because he put up "monster numbers".

The fact of the matter is this: Lidstrom is the best at his position defensively. AND hes the best at his position offensively. So if you wanted to correlate that to AO, that would require AO to not only have been the Art Ross winner, but to have had a chance at a Selke nomination, or even have his name mentioned in the same breath as top-notch defensive forwards.

Which, consequently, is also why few people would say Coffey was a superior Dman to Lidstrom.

Edited September 4, 2008 by YoungGuns1340

[egroen 384]

What is amazing about Lidstrom is he put up more points than offensive-defensemen like Gonchar, Phaneuf and Campbell -- and by a larger margin this year than Ovechkin did over other top forwards -- but those guys are not even in the same ballpark as Lidstrom is defensively. Not even close.

Edited September 4, 2008 by egroen

[YoungGuns1340 1]

Did you completely miss like a decade of hockey or something? When was the league defense? Have you missed all of the meetings the past years covering goalie movement, goalie pad restrictions, the removal of the two-line pass, more offense, less obstruction, etc..... Were you in hibernation or something?

The league was dead offensively for years. I'm sure you can google it and get up to speed.

You say offensively minded teams have been defeated. Well the flip side of that coin will show you that so have the defensively minded ones the past few years. You see New Jersey or Minnesota hoisting the Cup lately? I don't think so.

Detroit has 2 of the most offensively prolific guys on offense in Dats and Z. 2 of the most offensive D men in Nick and Rafs. Another in Kronner. Fantastic 2nd and 3rd line offensive support in Homer, Franzen, Clearly, Hudler, Flip, Samuellson. Yes, these players play into Babcock's system of strong individual and team defense. But stop kidding yourselves. These guys are offensive weapons. The Wings just happen to be good at both ends of the rink. But they are always one of the top offensive teams in the league.

How can anybody gloss over the fact that the wings usually finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd in offense every single year? All this weight is placed upon Nick's defense being the key and defense, defense, defense wins it for you.

That argument would be more suitable if Nick played for New Jersey. The Wings are an offensive juggernaut. Don't forget that. Without Dats, Z and Rafs. The Wings would be a 2nd tier team with the best Dman on the planet. They wouldn't win championships and Nick wouldn't have the numbers he does. Never forget how much OFFENSE plays a gigantic role in us winning.

GST, your points can easily be proven conversely as well. Which is to say, I don't see where either opinion is right, but rather that both opinions are equal in value. But just to play to the other side...

Your scenario of Nick playing for New Jersey actually has a current offensive comparison, in Washington. In New Jersey, you'd have the best Dman on a 2nd tier team, at least where offense is concerned. In Washington, you have exactly that in terms of offense. The best forward in the league on a 2nd tier team, where defense is concerned. And where did it get them? Where you would expect a 2nd tier team to land: squeaking into the playoffs (in terms of performance, not seeding) and getting quickly ousted.

Fact of the matter is, in this era, defense thus far has proven more viable than offense. Of course the era of the sport is going to dictate which is more important, but as of now, the fact that Pittsburgh only got anywhere when Orpik played his best games ever, Staal and Hossa were able to help out on the back-end, and Gonchar decided to have a career year (coming in 4th in Norris votes), and Fleury similarly playing his best speaks to this. Where was Pittsburgh when these defensive factors weren't coming together? Ousted in the first, despite absolute prime talent in the offensive ranks. The same can be said for Anaheim, who had phenomenal defense and adequate offense when they won the cup. Detroit itself is a difficult example to use because the team itself is unmatched in the NHL due to its great offense, great defense, and similarly, great defensive offense, and great offensive defense.

Theres more I'd like to address about your posts, but unfortunately I dont have the time (and shouldn't have gotten caught on this board mid-day on a workday anyways.. )

[egroen 384]

Detroit itself is a difficult example to use because the team itself is unmatched in the NHL due to its great offense, great defense, and similarly, great defensive offense, and great offensive defense.

And what happened last year in the playoffs when Detroit lost some of its key D, or this regular season when our D was having injury problems? Detroit has a great offense, but is definitely a Defense-first team, and it is painfully obvious whenever any of our key defensemen go down.

[Reds4Life 51]

And what happened last year in the playoffs when Detroit lost some of its key D, or this regular season when our D was having injury problems? Detroit has a great offense, but is definitely a Defense-first team, and it is painfully obvious whenever any of our key defensemen go down.

That and most of the offense(ES) is generated thanks to blueliners and their plays anyways. We are lucky to have Lidstrom, Kronwall and Rafalski on the blueline.

[toby91_ca 620]

In terms of what wins, offense vs. defense, I think you really need to be well balanced between the two and be pretty high on both. The only way a purely offensive team is going to win is if they really blow the rest of the league out of the water (see 1980s Oilers). It is also pretty rare for a strong defensive team to win it all unless they have a strong offense as well.

I did a little bit of research and came up with these numbers. Since expansion in 1967 (40 cups), here is the breakdown of cup winners and their standings in term of offense:

1 - 10 times

2 - 12 times

3 - 4 times

4 - 2 times

5 - 3 times

6 - 4 times

9 - 1 time

10+ - 4 times (NJ*2 in same era and NYI*2 in same era)

I think if you did the same for defense, you might get similar results, not sure, but I think what this at least shows is, more often than not, the team winning the cup is one of the best offensive teams in the league (22 out of 40 years = top 2)

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

In terms of what wins, offense vs. defense, I think you really need to be well balanced between the two and be pretty high on both. The only way a purely offensive team is going to win is if they really blow the rest of the league out of the water (see 1980s Oilers). It is also pretty rare for a strong defensive team to win it all unless they have a strong offense as well.

I did a little bit of research and came up with these numbers. Since expansion in 1967 (40 cups), here is the breakdown of cup winners and their standings in term of offense:

1 - 10 times

2 - 12 times

3 - 4 times

4 - 2 times

5 - 3 times

6 - 4 times

9 - 1 time

10+ - 4 times (NJ*2 in same era and NYI*2 in same era)

I think if you did the same for defense, you might get similar results, not sure, but I think what this at least shows is, more often than not, the team winning the cup is one of the best offensive teams in the league (22 out of 40 years = top 2)

Excellent point.

As far as the original post, and I can't remember names, many pundits over the years have chosen Lidstrom as the player they would build a team around.

[norrisnick 1]

In terms of what wins, offense vs. defense, I think you really need to be well balanced between the two and be pretty high on both. The only way a purely offensive team is going to win is if they really blow the rest of the league out of the water (see 1980s Oilers). It is also pretty rare for a strong defensive team to win it all unless they have a strong offense as well.

I did a little bit of research and came up with these numbers. Since expansion in 1967 (40 cups), here is the breakdown of cup winners and their standings in term of offense:

1 - 10 times

2 - 12 times

3 - 4 times

4 - 2 times

5 - 3 times

6 - 4 times

9 - 1 time

10+ - 4 times (NJ*2 in same era and NYI*2 in same era)

I think if you did the same for defense, you might get similar results, not sure, but I think what this at least shows is, more often than not, the team winning the cup is one of the best offensive teams in the league (22 out of 40 years = top 2)

Defense

1 - 12 times

2 - 4 times

3 - 3 times

4 - 3 times

5 - 2 times

6 - 2 times

7 - 5 times

8 - 3 times

9 - 1 time

10+ - 5 times

Places 8-10+ are Edmonton's Cups, Pittsburgh's Cups (Mario's teams were horrific on defense bottom 3-4 both years), Tampa's win, and Carolina's win.

[eva unit zero 271]

In terms of what wins, offense vs. defense, I think you really need to be well balanced between the two and be pretty high on both. The only way a purely offensive team is going to win is if they really blow the rest of the league out of the water (see 1980s Oilers). It is also pretty rare for a strong defensive team to win it all unless they have a strong offense as well.

I did a little bit of research and came up with these numbers. Since expansion in 1967 (40 cups), here is the breakdown of cup winners and their standings in term of offense:

1 - 10 times

2 - 12 times

3 - 4 times

4 - 2 times

5 - 3 times

6 - 4 times

9 - 1 time

10+ - 4 times (NJ*2 in same era and NYI*2 in same era)

I think if you did the same for defense, you might get similar results, not sure, but I think what this at least shows is, more often than not, the team winning the cup is one of the best offensive teams in the league (22 out of 40 years = top 2)

Given that the league was only 12 teams at the start of your sample set and 30 teams at the end of it...it's hard to take '10+' as a serious ranking. Hell, a team that finished 7th in 1968 would have been below average offensively, but now would be in the top 25%.

A better sampling would include a system based on percentile rank or offensive share...what percentage of the league's teams did they outscore, or how many of the league's goals were scored by the eventual Cup champs?

Because a hard ranking system based on place that puts above average offensive teams from one era beneath below average offensive teams from another era based on nothing but league size is hugely flawed.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Thats a terrible way to look at it GST. Basically what you're saying is that Paul Coffey is a much better defenseman than Lidstrom, simply because he put up "monster numbers".

The fact of the matter is this: Lidstrom is the best at his position defensively. AND hes the best at his position offensively. So if you wanted to correlate that to AO, that would require AO to not only have been the Art Ross winner, but to have had a chance at a Selke nomination, or even have his name mentioned in the same breath as top-notch defensive forwards.

Which, consequently, is also why few people would say Coffey was a superior Dman to Lidstrom.

I'm sorry if it reads that way. I'm not saying any dman is better than Nick. Frankly, I think he's better than Orr or Harvey but I didn't get to see them play much.

What i'm saying is that in the NHL, as it stands today. IMO, offense plays a more important role than defense.

I look at it this way, how many times were the Wings ousted by s*** teams or teams with mediocre defense corps? Or at least a defense corps. that nobody would consider elite? Defensive systems and goalies got so good that almost any team can fall back, trap, obstruct and suffocate an offense. Yes, you can pair 2 guys like Jason Smith and Steve Staois and they too can shut down an offense. We've seen it happen.

My point is almost any team that is at least pretty good, can play good defense and/or collaps to hold onto a lead. IMO, if I need a goal, there's 1 guy I think gives me a better shot than any other player in the league to get me that game tying or winning goal. And that's AO.

I'm biased towards offense b/c I think you can teach any player or team to be sound defensively. The players just have to buy into it and have some talent obviously. But you can't teach somebody to become an offensive stud. You can't magically make a guy a big league scorer. It's harder to do. For what it's worth I value offense more than defense (goaltending notwithstanding b/c having an elite or mediocre goalie can wreak havoc with the entire thing).

I believe offense is the key to winning. AO is the best offensive player so he would get my vote. And when I say he's the best offensive player in the game, that should not be taken lightly. It should be taken with the same amount of emphasis and importance as when somebody says Nick is the best defensive player in the game.

For me it boils down to Nick is the best dman, AO is the best forward. I will take the forward. Especially if i'm building a team tomorrow and I get my pick of an early 20's wunderscorer, or a nearly 40 Norris man.

[egroen 384]

Especially if i'm building a team tomorrow and I get my pick of an early 20's wunderscorer, or a nearly 40 Norris man.

That's a given.

As for Orr - All you need to know is he won the Norris, Hart, Art Ross and Conn Smythe -- All in one season.

[Doc Holiday 0]

I think you can teach any player or team to be sound defensively.

No you can't.

[LeftWinger 5,152]

...bottom line in this arguement. Ask ANY coach or GM in the league (or ownder for that matter) if you had only one choice, only one pick of Lidstrom or Ovechkin, who would you want on your team?

They ALL would pick Lidstrom. PERIOD.

...ok, with Ovechkin you get 100 points a year, but that's ALL you get, you get nothing else. What do you get with Lidstrom? Ok, well maybe you get 50-60 points per year ALONG WITH the ability to play 35 minutes per game, the ability to shut down ANYONE, INCLUDING the mentioned Ovechkin...

...I don't think I am going out on limb here, but Ovechkin won't last anywhere near as longs as Lidstrom has lasted in the NHL. So with all the combined things that Lidstrom brings to the table, it is easy to see that ANYONE in the NHL world would give up the 100+ points per year for Lidstrom...

[egroen 384]

They ALL would pick Lidstrom. PERIOD.

I do disagree with this - I think it is pretty apparent a LOT of teams, especially in the East, would pick Ovechkin.

You are not crazy if you pick a guy who put up over 60 goals... but right now, I still think Lidstrom is better and more valuable. He is the best defender in the league, and still manages to score over a point per game.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

No you can't.

Look, i'm just trying to paint a picture for you of how I came to my pick of AO. I value offense more so far as winning consistently than I do defense.

IMO, you can take a guy like Mikael Samuellson or Jiri Hudler and make him responsible defensively in all 3 zones a hell of alot easier than you can teach them to become a 50 goal scorer.

IMO, defense and defensive systems are more teachable than simply waving a wand and making guys into elite level scorers. You can teach a guy to sacrifice his body to block shots, not to cherry pick offensively, to use his stick better in the passing lanes, not to lose track of his man, etc...

That's a heck of alot easier than looking at a guy and saying "ok, go be like Ovechkin". Ovechkin's don't grow on trees. You need a goal to win a game, you get the best offensive player in the game to get it for you. That's AO, hence he's my pick.

Nobody has to like it or agree with it.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

...bottom line in this arguement. Ask ANY coach or GM in the league (or ownder for that matter) if you had only one choice, only one pick of Lidstrom or Ovechkin, who would you want on your team?

They ALL would pick Lidstrom. PERIOD.

...ok, with Ovechkin you get 100 points a year, but that's ALL you get, you get nothing else. What do you get with Lidstrom? Ok, well maybe you get 50-60 points per year ALONG WITH the ability to play 35 minutes per game, the ability to shut down ANYONE, INCLUDING the mentioned Ovechkin...

...I don't think I am going out on limb here, but Ovechkin won't last anywhere near as longs as Lidstrom has lasted in the NHL. So with all the combined things that Lidstrom brings to the table, it is easy to see that ANYONE in the NHL world would give up the 100+ points per year for Lidstrom...

How long Lidstrom "has lasted" has no bearing on anything. So what, is Chelios better than AO b/c he's been in the league forever?

You take Lidstrom. I'll take AO and in 4 years when AO is what? 26 years old and Lids is over 40 and retired from the game what's that mean? The question posed is if you could build a team with 1 guy today who'd it be. You're even more arrogant than I am (and that ain't easy to do) to simply say all coaches would pick Lids. You don't know that. Did you do a poll yesterday or something?

Lids=best defensive player AO=best offensive player. What is more important to you is going to determine who you think is the best.

Goal scoring is going up, Lids is getting older, AO is getting better. I pick AO. And maybe, just maybe some NHL coaches would as well.

[egroen 384]

The question posed is if you could build a team with 1 guy today who'd it be.

To be fair, you are totally changing the question of the opening post, which was essentially 'Who is the Best Player in the NHL?'

If you could build a team and start with one guy, you would be an idiot not to start with the best young goalie in the league today: Luongo.

Edited September 5, 2008 by egroen

[Echolalia 2,961]

To be fair, you are totally changing the question of the opening post, which was essentially 'Who is the Best Player in the NHL?'

If you could build a team and start with one guy, you would be an idiot not to start with the best young goalie in the league today: Luongo.

I disagree. Having Luongo on a team built like Detroit would be a waste of capspace. In terms of goalies out there right now, I would rate Osgood in the middle of the pack; solid, yet nothing special, and that skill is adequate to win a cup. I would start with a solid defensman personally

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

To be fair, you are totally changing the question of the opening post, which was essentially 'Who is the Best Player in the NHL?'

If you could build a team and start with one guy, you would be an idiot not to start with the best young goalie in the league today: Luongo.

I'm not changing anything. The thread took a life of its own and part of the question of who is the best entailed who would you pick if you could only choose 1. That question evolved throughout the discussion and I am only responding to others comments as such.

I already said AO is the best in my mind. I further back up my claim by saying I'd pick him if I could build a team around anybody.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I disagree. Having Luongo on a team built like Detroit would be a waste of capspace. In terms of goalies out there right now, I would rate Osgood in the middle of the pack; solid, yet nothing special, and that skill is adequate to win a cup. I would start with a solid defensman personally

I agree with the goalie part. Disagree with the Dman part. But such is life. As I said, some will go with the best dman. I'm going to take the best forward.

Here's a question. If Lidstrom retired today. Who would people pick to build their team around?

AO?

Crosby?

Z?

Dats?

Phaneuf?

Would you go for an aging dman like Pronger or Niedermayer? In my mind there is nobody in the league who plays defense that is worthy of being chosen to build a team around other than Nick. But, Nick is also too old in the discussion for me to "build" a team around him. If i'm building something that lasts for more than 1 season I have to go with somebody way younger. At this point in time I would go with AO because he's damn near unstoppable. And no, I wouldn't take a goalie probably ever with my first choice.

[egroen 384]

Here's a question. If Lidstrom retired today. Who would people pick to build their team around?

When you factor age into it, I would not pick Lidstrom at this point either, despite thinking he is the best player in the NHL. There are no young dmen that show near the potential of Lidstrom to warrant picking at this time to build a team around, either. Lidstrom is a generational talent, easily a top 10 defenseman ever, and arguably a top 5. And I would pick AO or Crosby over Dats and Z right now simply because they are younger.

But if you offer me all those players, at the same age and at the same salary, I pick Lidstrom, because he is proven to be that much better than his peers, and is on the ice for close to half the game.