• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
egroen

Lidstrom a +1 for the Season

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

That's certainly one way to look at it if it doesn't support someone's particular player they are rooting for.

The bottom line is there are a great number of games, shifts and minutes played. All the players who may be in contention for a Norris are up against the same obstacles.

There's a large enough sample population over the course of a season that makes +/- a useful indicator. Simply micromanaging it by saying it doesn't take a second to second look at who each player is playing against makes me think your assertion is Nick is playing against the best of the best all the time while the other candidates get all their ice time against hacks. All the Norris candidates, whomever they end up being, have played against tough opposition.

Any attempt to explain away Nick's poor +/- this year b/c it doesn't reflect generously on him is trying to sweep unseemly evidence under the rug. We're not playing well defensively and Nick has been a part of that. Is he the main culprit? No. But it's been endemic of the entire team this year to a level we're not quite used to.

Nick has always played against the best of the best. Hasn't seemed to hamper his +/- in the past like it is this year. So you can't just say its no longer a useful stat b/c it reflects poorly on him now. Maybe you've always felt that way, I don't know. I just happen to disagree with your contention that it's useless.

Since 2000 his +/- has been the following:

+19

+9

+13

+40

+19

+21

+40

+40

+31

+22

That's a ton of variance during a time when Lidstrom's defense was very consistently great.

Between 03 and 04 he dipped 21 and between 02 and 03 he went up 27. Was 03 Lidstrom far away superior defensively to 02 and 04 Lidstrom?

Those who watched those years know he was the same elite defensive player each year, and if given enough time we could write out a couple of pages attempting to explain why his +/- has taken a full 20 point swing in some years - his linemates, goalies, good/bad luck, etc. It's easier to just look at the stats and think Lidstrom was bad defensively in years like 01 and 02 and he was great defensively in 03, 07 and 08 - but that is not accurate at all. But to explain the variance is only going to come out like muddled, subjective "excuse making".

The fact is, Lidstrom is not what he was defensively, but he is still one of the best in the NHL in that department and by far the #1 defenseman on the Wings you want out there to defend a lead or on an important penalty kill. Lidstrom could just as easily be a +20 this year - it's just too variable of a stat to look at on face value on a year to year basis.

Unfortunately, the voters do look at +/- and it could be the #1 reason he does not win a Norris this year. Which would be too bad, as the other top producing defenseman are simply not at his level defensively, no matter what their +/- states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 2000 his +/- has been the following:

+19

+9

+13

+40

+19

+21

+40

+40

+31

+22

That's a ton of variance during a time when Lidstrom's defense was very consistently great.

Between 03 and 04 he dipped 21 and between 02 and 03 he went up 27. Was 03 Lidstrom far away superior defensively to 02 and 04 Lidstrom?

Those who watched those years know he was the same elite defensive player each year, and if given enough time we could write out a couple of pages attempting to explain why his +/- has taken a full 20 point swing in some years - his linemates, goalies, good/bad luck, etc. It's easier to just look at the stats and think Lidstrom was bad defensively in years like 01 and 02 and he was great defensively in 03, 07 and 08 - but that is not accurate at all. But to explain the variance is only going to come out like muddled, subjective "excuse making".

The fact is, Lidstrom is not what he was defensively, but he is still one of the best in the NHL in that department and by far the #1 defenseman on the Wings you want out there to defend a lead or on an important penalty kill. Lidstrom could just as easily be a +20 this year - it's just too variable of a stat to look at on face value on a year to year basis.

Unfortunately, the voters do look at +/- and it could be the #1 reason he does not win a Norris this year. Which would be too bad, as the other top producing defenseman are simply not at his level defensively, no matter what their +/- states.

I agree. Frankly, I don't think his +/- will really hurt him this year. Especially if he's going up against Yandle, Viz, Buff, etc.....

There's been a definite swing in the names we typically see at the top. Take Chara for instance, nobody can argue his isn't an elite defender, perhaps even better than Nick these days. Boston's numbers sure do reflect much better as a team than ours. But he's so far down the list points wise. If you look at the top 20 guys (points wise) there's really nobody there you could argue is better than Nick.

TBH, the field seems so weak this year. Weber, Doughty, Keith, Seabrook, they're all in the pack but not at the top of it and the guys who are higher up, Goligoski, Wizniewski, Burns, Ehrhoff, anybody really going to push hard for them as candidates?

Nick may well end up winning his weakest Norris ever simply because the competition isn't up to par this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he loses the Norris because of this, I'll never forgive Howard.

Lidstrom is a frontrunner at this point.

Enstrom will not win it if the Thrashers miss, and either way he hasn't been as great as he started.

Buff has no chance.

Letang's numbers have taken a dive since the team has been stricken with injuries.

Yandle has hardly any PK time.

Neither Keith or Doughty are what they were last season.

Neither Weber or Chara have the points to contend, and Thomas should completely nullify any defensive statistic Chara has over anyone else.

This is Lidstrom's to lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame Howard for Lidstroms failures?

Lets talk about tonight. Whitney break away chance? Right in front of a Lidstrom when he got the pass, and then Howard goes to sweep it to the side and Lidstrom is unable to control and its shot twice after the break out by people within couple feet of Lidstrom.

Howards great stop against Hanzal? Well he holds Hanzal behind the net while the puck is under his own feet and then allows for Hanzal to get to the front of the net, which last I checked, was Howards big problem this year, the front of the net has been allowed to be a free for all zone.

Its become quite the bore hearing all the time everytime Rafalski is on the ice for a goal he gets attacked as if its his fault. Specifically the game winner in Game 5 by the Sharks, everyone here said it was all Rafalskis fault and he lost the battle behind the net, but he technically would of won it if the Sharks forecheck wasn't good, but it was and I can't recall who the passer was, but they threw right by Lidstrom and Marleau got a goal, but no its all Rafalskis fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame Howard for Lidstroms failures?

Lets talk about tonight. Whitney break away chance? Right in front of a Lidstrom when he got the pass, and then Howard goes to sweep it to the side and Lidstrom is unable to control and its shot twice after the break out by people within couple feet of Lidstrom.

Howards great stop against Hanzal? Well he holds Hanzal behind the net while the puck is under his own feet and then allows for Hanzal to get to the front of the net, which last I checked, was Howards big problem this year, the front of the net has been allowed to be a free for all zone.

Its become quite the bore hearing all the time everytime Rafalski is on the ice for a goal he gets attacked as if its his fault. Specifically the game winner in Game 5 by the Sharks, everyone here said it was all Rafalskis fault and he lost the battle behind the net, but he technically would of won it if the Sharks forecheck wasn't good, but it was and I can't recall who the passer was, but they threw right by Lidstrom and Marleau got a goal, but no its all Rafalskis fault.

Lidstrom has been Detroit's best defenseman.

Rafalski has not.

Deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically the game winner in Game 5 by the Sharks, everyone here said it was all Rafalskis fault and he lost the battle behind the net, but he technically would of won it if the Sharks forecheck wasn't good, but it was and I can't recall who the passer was, but they threw right by Lidstrom and Marleau got a goal, but no its all Rafalskis fault.

Maybe somewhat off-topic, but there's a story to that goal. When Rafalski had the puck behind the net Lidstrom called to him. What he said was "hard," as in "hard around the boards," which would have likely cleared the puck. What the thought Nick said was "here," so he reversed it off the wall, where Nick would be if he had said that. Of course that wasn't what he said, so instead it went right to Joe Thornton, who made the easy play to Marleau.

More of an unfortunate miscommunication than a poor decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lidstrom has been Detroit's best defenseman.

Rafalski has not.

Deal with it.

Have you seen the stats? Rafalski +14. Lidstrom -2. The fact of the matter, even with the points Lidstrom has got, hes on the ice for too many goals and Howard gets blamed for it why?

Maybe somewhat off-topic, but there's a story to that goal. When Rafalski had the puck behind the net Lidstrom called to him. What he said was "hard," as in "hard around the boards," which would have likely cleared the puck. What the thought Nick said was "here," so he reversed it off the wall, where Nick would be if he had said that. Of course that wasn't what he said, so instead it went right to Joe Thornton, who made the easy play to Marleau.

More of an unfortunate miscommunication than a poor decision.

Source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the stats? Rafalski +14. Lidstrom -2. The fact of the matter, even with the points Lidstrom has got, hes on the ice for too many goals and Howard gets blamed for it why?

Source.

While I would still take Nick over any other Red Wings dman. It's getting harder and harder to say with 100% certainty that i'd take Nick over any other dman in the league.

Pointing out the disparity in Raf's and Nick's +/- got you nothing but cricket chirps. That's because I don't think people here will easily come to grips with anything that reflects negatively on Nick.

Comparing their +/- probably shouldn't be the end all say all nor an accurate indication of who is playing better (perhaps it is), the simple truth is Nick has been on the ice for FAR TOO MANY goals.

The team needs to play better and frankly, so does Nick. Like I said earlier I think he'll tighten it up come crunch time but i'm not going to conveniently sweep this under the rug because Nick is "a god". He's not playing well enough defensively. His numbers are reflecting that. He is capable of playing better though and he will, of that I am confident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the stats? Rafalski +14. Lidstrom -2. The fact of the matter, even with the points Lidstrom has got, hes on the ice for too many goals and Howard gets blamed for it why?

Lol at +/- being used as an indicator of anything.

Lidstrom's +/- throughout his career has fluctuated by 20+ points multiple times. It isn't like it is unheard of for his +/- to drop a significant amount without his defensive play taking a huge hit. The team defensively as a whole has gotten worse.

Edited by Doc Holliday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at +/- being used as an indicator of anything.

Lidstrom's +/- throughout his career has fluctuated by 20+ points multiple times. It isn't like it is unheard of for his +/- to drop a significant amount without his defensive play taking a huge hit. The team defensively as a whole has gotten worse.

True. But it's one thing to go from a +40 to a +20. +20 is a very respectable number.

It's entirely another thing to be -2 at this point in the year when your name is Nick Lidstrom.

Has anyone ever won the Norris with a negative +/-?

I think it would be sort of funny to see it happen considering most people I know gripe that it has turned into largely a who is the best offensive dman award. Granted you have to play d too or Mike Green would've won it a few years back. Still, winning the Norris and not even being on the plus side would seem to run somewhat counter to the very spirit of the award.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But it's one thing to go from a +40 to a +20. +20 is a very respectable number.

It's entirely another thing to be -2 at this point in the year when your name is Nick Lidstrom.

Has anyone ever won the Norris with a negative +/-?

Randy Carlyle did in the 1981 season.

I think it would be sort of funny to see it happen considering most people I know gripe that it has turned into largely a who is the best offensive dman award. Granted you have to play d too or Mike Green would've won it a few years back. Still, winning the Norris and not even being on the plus side would seem to run somewhat counter to the very spirit of the award.

It would not at all, because everyone who understands the position of defense in hockey knows you cannot measure defensive play with statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Randy Carlyle did in the 1981 season.

It would not at all, because everyone who understands the position of defense in hockey knows you cannot measure defensive play with statistics.

Rest assured I understand the position of defense well enough imo. I played it for over 20 years.

And i'll have to respectfully disagree with you regarding statistics. You're statement is nothing more than pure hyperbole. Note that I did not state that statistical data is the only measure. But stats do provide useful barometers for some things.

Let me pose a question to you for my own reference. Let's say Nick were to finish in the top 3 in D scoring. But finishes the year out at a -10. Would your opinion change at all? How about at -15? -20? Is there a +/- number out there that you think would simply disqualify a person from Norris contention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured I understand the position of defense well enough imo. I played it for over 20 years.

And i'll have to respectfully disagree with you regarding statistics. You're statement is nothing more than pure hyperbole. Note that I did not state that statistical data is the only measure. But stats do provide useful barometers for some things.

Let me pose a question to you for my own reference. Let's say Nick were to finish in the top 3 in D scoring. But finishes the year out at a -10. Would your opinion change at all? How about at -15? -20? Is there a +/- number out there that you think would simply disqualify a person from Norris contention?

Plus minus measures the goals for and against in even strength, power play, and shorthanded situations. A player receives a minus if he is on the ice for a goal against at even strength or while his team has a power play, and he receives a plus if he is on the ice when his team scores a goal at even strength or while shorthanded.

A lot of goals are scored which result in players receiving a "plus" or "minus" without having had any effect on the play. The Drew Miller goal that started the scoring against Phoenix on Saturday happened at the start of a badly timed line change by the Wings. The Wings forwards changed, Phoenix began to push, Helm knocked the puck free in the neutral zone and Miller carried in and scored. Bertuzzi was getting on the bench and Abdelkader off as Miller entered the zone. Yet Abs and the D get pluses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus minus measures the goals for and against in even strength, power play, and shorthanded situations. A player receives a minus if he is on the ice for a goal against at even strength or while his team has a power play, and he receives a plus if he is on the ice when his team scores a goal at even strength or while shorthanded.

A lot of goals are scored which result in players receiving a "plus" or "minus" without having had any effect on the play. The Drew Miller goal that started the scoring against Phoenix on Saturday happened at the start of a badly timed line change by the Wings. The Wings forwards changed, Phoenix began to push, Helm knocked the puck free in the neutral zone and Miller carried in and scored. Bertuzzi was getting on the bench and Abdelkader off as Miller entered the zone. Yet Abs and the D get pluses.

A person gets a two minute penalty for a minor infraction. They also may be assessed a double minor in certain circumstances. Five minute penalties are giving out for majors. High sticking, boarding, and fighting are the most common. A ten minute misconduct can also be assessed as well as a game misconduct.

Reciting stuff is fun!

As for your second part, I'm guessing you assume Erik Karlsson is an excellent defensive defenseman although his league worst plus minus says otherwise. He must have had a lot of unlucky situations happen to him for his plus minus to be that atrocious. His -10 in the past ten games where his team only gave up 26 goals total is because he just happened to step on the ice the moment a goal was being scored eh?

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured I understand the position of defense well enough imo. I played it for over 20 years.

And i'll have to respectfully disagree with you regarding statistics. You're statement is nothing more than pure hyperbole. Note that I did not state that statistical data is the only measure. But stats do provide useful barometers for some things.

Let me pose a question to you for my own reference. Let's say Nick were to finish in the top 3 in D scoring. But finishes the year out at a -10. Would your opinion change at all? How about at -15? -20? Is there a +/- number out there that you think would simply disqualify a person from Norris contention?

You are really using drastic examples to prove your point.

If Lidstrom's +/- was that bad (assuming his teammates stay the same) his defensive play would likely reflect that number. The difference is Lidstrom is still a solid defensive player, and his +/- is hardly an indicator of that considering the 20 pt drop has happened multiple times in his career.

Do you honestly believe Rafalski is a better defensive player than Lidstrom based on the fact he has a 16 pt cushion on +/-? Do you believe Lidstrom is the worst defensive player on the team based on the fact he has the worst +/-?

Context. My statement was perfectly valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are really using drastic examples to prove your point.

If Lidstrom's +/- was that bad (assuming his teammates stay the same) his defensive play would likely reflect that number. The difference is Lidstrom is still a solid defensive player, and his +/- is hardly an indicator of that considering the 20 pt drop has happened multiple times in his career.

Do you honestly believe Rafalski is a better defensive player than Lidstrom based on the fact he has a 16 pt cushion on +/-? Do you believe Lidstrom is the worst defensive player on the team based on the fact he has the worst +/-?

Context. My statement was perfectly valid.

Actually, Lidstrom's defensive play is still solid and i've never said otherwise. Did you not understand when I alluded to that in other posts?

What I have said is that it is not what it used to be and that it wasn't necessarily a reflection just on him but on the entire team's less than stellar defensive play. Although I might have stated that in Wings Cup chances thread so perhaps you didn't see it.

Furthermore, I clearly stated that I would still choose Nick over any other Red Wings defenseman regarding this topic. So your question about Rafalski is either simply an attempt to goad me or somewhere in my posts you've come to the wrong conclusion that you think I base everything on +/-. Of course I also posted that +/- is not the end all say when determining defensive play.

It appears that either I am not being clear enough for you or you are simply ignoring the things I say that you don't have issue with, instead choosing to misconstrue anything I say that disagrees with you or impugns Nick's abilities even in the slightest.

As for the validity of your statement. I'm not sure which statement you're referring to. Insomuch as your position that its valid. Well, that seems to be par for the course for a message board. One's own points are always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. But it's one thing to go from a +40 to a +20. +20 is a very respectable number.

It's entirely another thing to be -2 at this point in the year when your name is Nick Lidstrom.

Has anyone ever won the Norris with a negative +/-?

I think it would be sort of funny to see it happen considering most people I know gripe that it has turned into largely a who is the best offensive dman award. Granted you have to play d too or Mike Green would've won it a few years back. Still, winning the Norris and not even being on the plus side would seem to run somewhat counter to the very spirit of the award.

Rob Blake won over Lidstrom in '98 despite having less points and a negative +/-. That was before the voters acknowledged defense could be played without crushing hits, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. My opinion is that it's debatable at this point.

Might be more than just me :hehe: Who do think is up there with him at this point?

Edited by wingslogo19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be more than just me :hehe: Who do think is up there with him at this point?

Overall game, ability to generate both offense and strong defensive play. Probably Chara would be near the top of my list today with Nick.

Nick's been head and shoulders above everybody for so long it's hard for people to fathom him not being the clear cut #1. Well, unfortunately players do age and I think anybody who thinks Nick is as good defensively as he was even a couple of years ago and that no other dman in the league could possibly touch him is suffering from a mild case of bias. I'm not saying he can't be the best dman in the league on any given night. What i'm saying is I think the conversation has changed (at least outside of Detroit and us Wings fans) that he's not the #1, best overall, nobody close to him hands down, no discussion, no debate.

If I had 1 game, needed 1 guy, total package, most times I'd probably still say Nick. If I had 1 game and I need 1 guy to simply shut somebody down, maybe I still go with Nick. Maybe I go with somebody else like Chara. Maybe (lord please don't strike me down) maybe I even go with Chris Pronger. It's just my opinion. There's no right or wrong to it I think. I just personally think there are some guys who are as good defensively as Nick nowadays. Which says a lot for a guy Nick's age to still be considered by many the best in the game.

Lidstrom's current defense is like a 150 pt season from Gretzky - not his best, but still one of the best in the game

Yup. That's how I feel. Still superb but not exactly as superb as we're accustomed to. That's all i'm saying. Not trying to bash the guy.

Still, Nick is part of a team that defensively, is not getting it down. This team, with the amount of solid defensive forwards and system, ought never to be in the bottom 1/2 or for god's sake 1/3 of the Western conf. in goals allowed. That's unacceptable imo. We don't play to the end of the game always, been like that for years. Nick is a part of that. Like I said before, not the main culprit but we can't just blame everybody and say Nick is infallible. He makes mistakes too. He's been on the ice for some pretty horrendous goals against. Nothing new. Just seems to be happening more and more as the years go by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rest assured I understand the position of defense well enough imo. I played it for over 20 years.

And i'll have to respectfully disagree with you regarding statistics. You're statement is nothing more than pure hyperbole. Note that I did not state that statistical data is the only measure. But stats do provide useful barometers for some things.

Let me pose a question to you for my own reference. Let's say Nick were to finish in the top 3 in D scoring. But finishes the year out at a -10. Would your opinion change at all? How about at -15? -20? Is there a +/- number out there that you think would simply disqualify a person from Norris contention?

I would think in order to win the Norris you would have to at least be a plus player. It seems like the Norris anymore is just a Richard trophy for defensemen.

+/- IMO seems like it's more about sound decision making than it is being a shutdown defender. As long as you're solid in your own end and don't give up any great scoring chances, no horribly bad turnovers, then your +/- should be at least average or even. The fact that Lids is going up against the opponent's top line every game should give the guy a little extra leeway compared to Rafi as well (for that discussion). Being second pairing you don't see the Getzlaf's of the world as often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this