Kronwall in the Playoffs

[WingedWheel91 271]

Ray Bourque did not do as much for the Boston Bruins as Nick Lidstrom did for the Detroit Red Wings.

5 Norris Trophies, 0 Stanley Cups.

7 Norris Trophies, 4 Stanley Cups, 1 Conn Smythe.

[WingedWheel91 271]

In terms of your definition: "a #1 is a guy that is in the upper echelon of defenseman in the league" - Are you suggesting like the top 2, 3, 5 NHL Defensmen? Because unfortunately they are 25/30 teams in the NHL without a top 5 Defenseman, and they aren't very easy to acquire.

It also doesn't mean your team cant be good without one, as Shea Weber, Drew Doughty and Erik Karlson are all players who didn't see the 2nd round of the playoffs this year. PK Subban hasn't contributed much and isn't likely to make it out of the 2nd round.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

In terms of your definition: "a #1 is a guy that is in the upper echelon of defenseman in the league" - Are you suggesting like the top 2, 3, 5 NHL Defensmen? Because unfortunately they are 25/30 teams in the NHL without a top 5 Defenseman, and they aren't very easy to acquire.

It also doesn't mean your team cant be good without one, as Shea Weber, Drew Doughty and Erik Karlson are all players who didn't see the 2nd round of the playoffs this year. PK Subban hasn't contributed much and isn't likely to make it out of the 2nd round.

I don't know about those teams, but this team needs a #1 defenseman who can move the puck and score goals. We can't win on grinding or crashing the net. We're trying to play a puck possession game which has to start from the back end.

But hey, if those stats Kronwall has put up in the playoffs are satisfying to you, then I digress. I just don't think he's a legit #1 defenseman and his stats in big moments back that up for me.

Ray Bourque did not do as much for the Boston Bruins as Nick Lidstrom did for the Detroit Red Wings.

5 Norris Trophies, 0 Stanley Cups.

7 Norris Trophies, 4 Stanley Cups, 1 Conn Smythe.

I thought you were joking at first but now I see you're actually serious. Ray Bourque "was" the Boston Bruins for 20 years. Nickas Lidstrom never had that kind of title or pressure. You could argue he was the best Wing for over a decade, but he had other help. He never played on teams that didn't have lots of talent and weren't a Cup contender. Bourque played with some good players, but never had the teams around him Lidstrom did on an annual basis. The fact that Lidstrom won more Cups doesn't mean he was more important to his team than Bourque. That's silly since it's a team stat. Would Lidstrom have carried Boston past Edmonton in 1988 and 1990. I think not.

The Norris trophies you have to look in context. Lidstrom had to compete against Pronger, MacInnis, Blake, Chara, Keith and Niedermayer. Bourque had to compete against Coffey, Potvin, MacInnis, Robinson, Stevens, Chelios, Langway and Leetch. Who do you think had the tougher competition for Norris trophies?

[WingedWheel91 271]

Congratulations - you are one (of a very small group of people, and maybe the only one who doesn't live in Boston) who would rather have Ray Bourque on your team for a 20 year span than Nick Lidstrom. If your argument is that Nick Lidstrom doesn't have quite the offensive numbers as Bourque (although close) its obviously because of how much the game has evolved. He was putting up point totals that even the best NHL forwards don't put up today because of how many less goals are scored. The comparison between Lidstrom's and Bourque's defensive abilities aren't even worth the time.

To even attempt to suggest that Ray Bourque's competition from 1979-1999 was greater/tougher than Nick Lidstrom's competition from 1992-2012 is really where I lose focus - There were only 16 teams in the National Hockey League when Bourque started his career, or 84 less Defenseman competing for the Norris Trophy. A full decade later, there were still only 20. You also realize that the Detroit Red Wings were an awful hockey team until about 1992 (Lidstrom's Rookie season), no coincidence there either I guess.

And after all of that, in a league with 10-14 less teams (or 60-84 less Defensemen) than Bourque had to compete with, Nick Lidstrom still has the superior accomplishments. Is a Norris Trophy a "silly team stat"? Is a Conn Smythe trophy (on possibly the greatest hockey team of all time) a "silly team stat"?

No. When you win the Conn Smythe trophy, you were the best player on the team that won a Stanley Cup...I can say confidently that without him in 2002, they wouldn't have won the cup. This is something Ray Bourque was never able to do, and at the end of the day there isn't 1 player who wouldn't trade individual accomplishments for cup rings. This is why the game is played.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Congratulations - you are one (of a very small group of people, and maybe the only one who doesn't live in Boston) who would rather have Ray Bourque on your team for a 20 year span than Nick Lidstrom. If your argument is that Nick Lidstrom doesn't have quite the offensive numbers as Bourque (although close) its obviously because of how much the game has evolved. He was putting up point totals that even the best NHL forwards don't put up today because of how many less goals are scored. The comparison between Lidstrom's and Bourque's defensive abilities aren't even worth the time.

To even attempt to suggest that Ray Bourque's competition from 1979-1999 was greater/tougher than Nick Lidstrom's competition from 1992-2012 is really where I lose focus - There were only 16 teams in the National Hockey League when Bourque started his career, or 84 less Defenseman competing for the Norris Trophy. A full decade later, there were still only 20. You also realize that the Detroit Red Wings were an awful hockey team until about 1992 (Lidstrom's Rookie season), no coincidence there either I guess.

And after all of that, in a league with 10-14 less teams (or 60-84 less Defensemen) than Bourque had to compete with, Nick Lidstrom still has the superior accomplishments. Is a Norris Trophy a "silly team stat"? Is a Conn Smythe trophy (on possibly the greatest hockey team of all time) a "silly team stat"?

No. When you win the Conn Smythe trophy, you were the best player on the team that won a Stanley Cup...I can say confidently that without him in 2002, they wouldn't have won the cup. This is something Ray Bourque was never able to do, and at the end of the day there isn't 1 player who wouldn't trade individual accomplishments for cup rings. This is why the game is played.

Where did I say that? I'd rather have Lidstrom. I was just refuting your post about how Lidstrom has done something nobody else has ever done for so long. Your post ignored Bourque completely.

Bourque was elite and important to Boston for a long time. And Cups are a team stat. They're also a product of the era you play in. Did Lidstrom ever have to go up against Gretzky's Oilers or Mario's Penguins in the playoffs? No he didn't. Lidstrom's Cups were won in seasons where Detroit had the best roster in the league, bar none. Bourque never had the best roster in the league, bar none, until he went to Colorado to play on his own superstar laden team.

The number of teams isn't relevant either. It's the names I mentioned that are relevant dispersed throughout those teams. There are more HOF, Norris trophy caliber defensemen playing in Bourque's prime than in Lidstrom's. Just look at those names. Lidstrom would have won Norris trophies in that era too, just not likely to win as many.

Trophies depend on the era you play in. Yzerman never won a Hart trophy because his peak was during Gretzky's and Lemieux's peaks. Scott Stevens has won fewer Norris trophies than Duncan Keith. I suppose Keith is better? Al MacInnis won as many Norris trophies as Erik Karlsson. I suppose they're on equal footing now? Of course not.

You're right about us not winning a Cup without Lidstrom in 2002. Who says we would have? My point was simply that we won the Cup because we had so much talent. Not because we could have subtracted him and still won. Same thing with Hasek, Fedorov and Yzerman's contribution to those teams. We don't win without any of those players.

So to sum up, Bourque was elite for just as long as Lidstrom and just as important to his team. Lidstrom won two more Norris trophies likely because he had less competition, not because he was far better. Winning Cups is a team stat. Those are my only arguments here. I believe I've backed them up sufficiently.

[Richdg 267]

Congratulations - you are one (of a very small group of people, and maybe the only one who doesn't live in Boston) who would rather have Ray Bourque on your team for a 20 year span than Nick Lidstrom. If your argument is that Nick Lidstrom doesn't have quite the offensive numbers as Bourque (although close) its obviously because of how much the game has evolved. He was putting up point totals that even the best NHL forwards don't put up today because of how many less goals are scored. The comparison between Lidstrom's and Bourque's defensive abilities aren't even worth the time.

To even attempt to suggest that Ray Bourque's competition from 1979-1999 was greater/tougher than Nick Lidstrom's competition from 1992-2012 is really where I lose focus - There were only 16 teams in the National Hockey League when Bourque started his career, or 84 less Defenseman competing for the Norris Trophy. A full decade later, there were still only 20. You also realize that the Detroit Red Wings were an awful hockey team until about 1992 (Lidstrom's Rookie season), no coincidence there either I guess.

And after all of that, in a league with 10-14 less teams (or 60-84 less Defensemen) than Bourque had to compete with, Nick Lidstrom still has the superior accomplishments. Is a Norris Trophy a "silly team stat"? Is a Conn Smythe trophy (on possibly the greatest hockey team of all time) a "silly team stat"?

No. When you win the Conn Smythe trophy, you were the best player on the team that won a Stanley Cup...I can say confidently that without him in 2002, they wouldn't have won the cup. This is something Ray Bourque was never able to do, and at the end of the day there isn't 1 player who wouldn't trade individual accomplishments for cup rings. This is why the game is played.

You hve to be real careful with your examples here. The NHL was a much better offensive league during this period. Gretzky was in his prime, Mario, Stevie etc.... all putting up 150-200 points per season. The teams overall were much better and deeper. As the NHL over expanded teams overall became weaker. Guys that should have been in the IHL or AHL were now 3rd and 4th liners. Toppair Dmen were getting "easy" shifts because of the deluted talent.

The game was also far more physical from 79-95 than it is from the 95-today period.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

Of you don't think Kronwall is a #1, you have a very narrow definition of a #1 and think there are only 10-12 in the NHL. 210 defensemen in the league on active rosters at any given time, there aren't 20 guys better than him, putting him in the top 10%.

[Buppy 1,720]

25 games, all of them against some of the best teams in league and many of them where the team as a whole played poorly, is a pretty small sample size to conclude that Kronwall is not a #1, much less not even a top pair guy. 123 p in 207 g is a better indicator. He's not Norris level, but he's definitely a #1.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

25 games, all of them against some of the best teams in league and many of them where the team as a whole played poorly, is a pretty small sample size to conclude that Kronwall is not a #1, much less not even a top pair guy. 123 p in 207 g is a better indicator. He's not Norris level, but he's definitely a #1.

Three seasons is enough of a sample size. I doubt he's going to be any younger next season. He may have been a better #1 a few years before Lidstrom retired. Maybe not. But at this point, what exactly is Kronwall's upside?

Of you don't think Kronwall is a #1, you have a very narrow definition of a #1 and think there are only 10-12 in the NHL. 210 defensemen in the league on active rosters at any given time, there aren't 20 guys better than him, putting him in the top 10%.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I just wish Kronwall's playoff performances backed up your statement.

[number9 3,297]

Three seasons is enough of a sample size. I doubt he's going to be any younger next season. He may have been a better #1 a few years before Lidstrom retired. Maybe not. But at this point, what exactly is Kronwall's upside?

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I just wish Kronwall's playoff performances backed up your statement.

In Shea Webers last 24 playoff games (3 seasons) he has 9 pts. Not #1 D-man??

Edited May 5, 2015 by number9

[number9 3,297]

In Ryan Suters last 24 PO games (3 seasons) he has 9 pts. Those certainly are not #1 D-man numbers... Therefore he must not be a #1 D-man

Edited May 5, 2015 by number9

[number9 3,297]

I'd take Weber any day over Kronwall, but that's just me.

Add Suter to the mix as well.

Most, including myself, would take Weber... But that's missing the point

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Most, including myself, would take Weber... But that's missing the point

Not really. The point is that you and I know those guys are legit #1 defensemen and don't need to be justified with stats. Kronwall is a tweener and his performances flat out don't help. I mean don't you want more from him in big games? Were you satisfied with his last few playoff performances? Do you think Weber and Suter are more established top tier defensemen than him?

This isn't a complicated topic.

[Buppy 1,720]

Three seasons is enough of a sample size. I doubt he's going to be any younger next season. He may have been a better #1 a few years before Lidstrom retired. Maybe not. But at this point, what exactly is Kronwall's upside?

....

25 games is 25 games, no matter how many seasons it's spread over. It's a small sample. The numbers I gave are his regular season numbers from the same 3 years. That puts him 11th (or 10th if you count Burns as a forward) in defense scoring in that span. He also plays in all situations and against the top opposition. That he hasn't had many playoff points in that time doesn't diminish that.

In the last 2 years he has 1g, 4p in 11 games. Not all that good but not really that bad either. Your stats are skewed by the one year he only managed 2p in 14g.

You could argue that we need a Norris caliber #1 on the basis that almost all the Cup winners in the last 25 years or so have had one. You can say that Kronwall is not Norris caliber. You can say Kronwall needs to produce more in the playoffs. You might even argue that he's a below average #1. But to say he's not a #1 at all is just silly.

[DickieDunn 2,571]

25 games, all of them against some of the best teams in league and many of them where the team as a whole played poorly, is a pretty small sample size to conclude that Kronwall is not a #1, much less not even a top pair guy. 123 p in 207 g is a better indicator. He's not Norris level, but he's definitely a #1.

Three seasons is enough of a sample size. I doubt he's going to be any younger next season. He may have been a better #1 a few years before Lidstrom retired. Maybe not. But at this point, what exactly is Kronwall's upside?

Of you don't think Kronwall is a #1, you have a very narrow definition of a #1 and think there are only 10-12 in the NHL. 210 defensemen in the league on active rosters at any given time, there aren't 20 guys better than him, putting him in the top 10%.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I just wish Kronwall's playoff performances backed up your statement.

Name 20 better.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

25 games is 25 games, no matter how many seasons it's spread over. It's a small sample. The numbers I gave are his regular season numbers from the same 3 years. That puts him 11th (or 10th if you count Burns as a forward) in defense scoring in that span. He also plays in all situations and against the top opposition. That he hasn't had many playoff points in that time doesn't diminish that.

In the last 2 years he has 1g, 4p in 11 games. Not all that good but not really that bad either. Your stats are skewed by the one year he only managed 2p in 14g.

You could argue that we need a Norris caliber #1 on the basis that almost all the Cup winners in the last 25 years or so have had one. You can say that Kronwall is not Norris caliber. You can say Kronwall needs to produce more in the playoffs. You might even argue that he's a below average #1. But to say he's not a #1 at all is just silly.

Well, you have a different definition then I do, apparently. There are a lot of different posts in this thread saying he is or isn't a legit #1, so it's an interesting subject.

Name 20 better.

Why 20?

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

The point is that Weber is both Batman, and the Joker all in one.....He'll bounce our 'C' Zetterberg's noggin off the glass, and 1-punch our so-called tuff guy Lilja.....Is there nothing he can't do?

Win a Norris trophy.

Or the Stanley cup.

[BottleOfSmoke 5,965]

Win a Norris trophy.

Or the Stanley cup.

SHOTS FIRED

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

Drops mic.

And picks up watermelon laffy taffy, THAT NO LONGER HAS FAKE CANDY SEEDS IN THEM, SMDH.

[jimmyemeryhunter 2,747]

His Olympic Gold medals are covering his ears like Princess Leia's cinnamon bun hairdo so he cannot hear you.

Mmmmmmmmmmmm

Cinnabun.

[kipwinger 8,521]

It's easier to win in the Olympics than in the NHL. So Olympic accolades don't really mean much. If Olympic Gold Medals meant more than Stanley Cups, Slava Fetisov would be considered a better defenseman than Nick Lidstrom. Which is silly, of course.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

The point is that Weber is both Batman, and the Joker all in one.....He'll bounce our 'C' Zetterberg's noggin off the glass, and 1-punch our so-called tuff guy Lilja.....Is there nothing he can't do?

Lilja TKO'd Sheldon Souray on November 20, 2008.

[number9 3,297]

Not really. The point is that you and I know those guys are legit #1 defensemen and don't need to be justified with stats. Kronwall is a tweener and his performances flat out don't help. I mean don't you want more from him in big games? Were you satisfied with his last few playoff performances? Do you think Weber and Suter are more established top tier defensemen than him?

This isn't a complicated topic.

So Weber and Suter get a pass on stats but not Kronwall? Why? IMO Kronners is a legit #1 D-man in this league.

Unless we win the cup I want more from every player on this team, but just cause we didn't this year doesn't mean that I suddenly think Zetterberg is not a legit top 6 forward, Howard a starter, or Kronwall a #1.

Suter I put at about the same level, Weber is better.

You're the one who chose to frame this thread around Kronwalls playoff stats, using that to make the argument that he isn't a #1. By that logic Weber and Suter are also not #1. This isn't a complicated topic.

Edited May 6, 2015 by number9

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I wonder how Fetisov would've fared had he been able to play in the NHL in his early 20's?

Would have been great. By the time he did come to the NHL, he was past his prime and had to adjust into a new league, system and country. Also, at that time players were declining in their 30's. Not like nowadays where a guy can still play at an elite level.

So Weber and Suter get a pass on stats but not Kronwall? Why? IMO Kronners is a legit #1 D-man in this league.

Unless we win the cup I want more from every player on this team, but just cause we didn't this year doesn't mean that I suddenly think Zetterberg is not a legit top 6 forward, Howard a starter, or Kronwall a #1.

Suter I put at about the same level, Weber is better.

You're the one who chose to frame this thread around Kronwalls playoff stats, using that to make the argument that he isn't a #1. By that logic Weber and Suter are also not #1. This isn't a complicated topic.

They're not getting a pass. There's just nobody questioning their status as elite defensemen in the league. Kronwall had a chip on his shoulder when Lidstrom retired and he became the top guy. He hasn't delivered. He's the one who needs to legitimize himself as a legit top defensemen. He's underwhelmed.

Edited May 6, 2015 by GMRwings1983

[number9 3,297]

Would have been great. By the time he did come to the NHL, he was past his prime and had to adjust into a new league, system and country. Also, at that time players were declining in their 30's. Not like nowadays where a guy can still play at an elite level.

They're not getting a pass. There's just nobody questioning their status as elite defensemen in the league. Kronwall had a chip on his shoulder when Lidstrom retired and he became the top guy. He hasn't delivered. He's the one who needs to legitimize himself as a legit top defensemen. He's underwhelmed.

Lol the only ones questioning Kronwall are Lidstrom spoiled Red Wings fans

So now it's about whatever fans you speak to questioning Kronwalls status, not his playoff numbers, I see

Edited May 6, 2015 by number9