Some clown claims Lidstrom better than Orr?

[elocomotive]

I still don't think Lidstrom should have won the Norris THIS year. I'm sorry, but -2 is -2, no matter how you want to slice it.

Who would you have picked?

 

[beantownmaniac]

Who would you have picked?

Lidstrom 62 pts -2

Chara 44 pts +33

Weber 48 pts +7

I don't know, what stat that's really important for a defenseman sticks out to you?

 

[elocomotive]

Homer.

 

[beantownmaniac]

Homer.

Switch the names, IMO, the guy with the 44pts and the +33 is my choice for the Norris. If those had been Weber's numbers I would say him.

 

[elocomotive]

Switch the names, IMO, the guy with the 44pts and the +33 is my choice for the Norris. If those had been Weber's numbers I would say him.

Just teasing ya, Wayne. I really don't care who they gave it to.

But if plus/minus is the biggest factor, Jeff Schultz should have won it last year!

 

[beantownmaniac]

Just teasing ya, Wayne. I really don't care who they gave it to.

But if plus/minus is the biggest factor, Jeff Schultz should have won it last year!

I look at BOTH points and +/-. Add them up, I bet a lot of Norris winners have the higher number when you do.

 

[BlueandWhiteForever]

Lidstrom 62 pts -2

Chara 44 pts +33

Weber 48 pts +7

I don't know, what stat that's really important for a defenseman sticks out to you?

The guy in the Boston net had a lot to do with that +33, wouldn't you agree?

 

[elocomotive]

I look at BOTH points and +/-. Add them up, I bet a lot of Norris winners have the higher number when you do.

Last year
Duncan Keith 69 points and +21
Mike Green 76 points and +39

 

[beantownmaniac]

The guy in the Boston net had a lot to do with that +33, wouldn't you agree?

Works both ways. The guy with the +33 had a lot to do with the guy in the net leading the league in GAA and SV%, as do all the defensemen. I don't care who gets it, as long as he isn't -2 for Christ's sake. That's pathetic for a Norris winner.

 

[BlueandWhiteForever]

Works both ways. The guy with the +33 had a lot to do with the guy in the net leading the league in GAA and SV%, as do all the defensemen. I don't care who gets it, as long as he isn't -2 for Christ's sake. That's pathetic for a Norris winner.

+/- is regarded as one of the most worthless stats in hockey, and for good reason.

Example: A player skates to the bench at the end of a heroic shift where he blocked 4 shots and saves the puck from the goal line from going in the net. Before he goes off the ice, a player from the other team breaks in alone and scores, making that player a -1.

 

[Darkstone42]

+/- is an extremely flawed stat unless you look at it over the course of several seasons. Long term trends are the only reliable things to look at with +/- because there is so much variance on the stat.

When it comes down to it, +/- indicates the play of your team while you're on the ice, not necessarily your own individual play. You have to eyeball test defense, you can't really quantify it. I was under the impression this season that Lidstrom's partners on defense had a nasty habit of turning the puck over in their own zone with regularity this season, and that probably contributed more to his low +/- than his own play, which was no doubt exceptional. Jimmy Howard also had some struggles this year, and if I'm not mistaken there were some injuries in the net for the Red Wings.

The only way to quantify defensive play would be to have a statistician keep track of scoring chances allowed in a defenseman's designated zone, which means the statistician would have to be extremely well-versed in every team's defensive rotations, then couple that with takeaways, giveaways in his own end, hits, and blocked shots, blocked passes, and chances defensed in some way, weighting each stat by importance.

 

[Darkstone42]

+/- is regarded as one of the most worthless stats in hockey, and for good reason.

Example: A player skates to the bench at the end of a heroic shift where he blocked 4 shots and saves the puck from the goal line from going in the net. Before he goes off the ice, a player from the other team breaks in alone and scores, making that player a -1.

Or you couple explain it simply, like this.

 

[BlueandWhiteForever]

To further that earlier point, imagine if in the same game, that player steps onto the ice for another shift, and instantly one of his teammates turns the puck over in front of his own net resulting in another goal. Third period hits, our friend gets some PP time, and has two shots ring off the goalpost. Later on, his team gets a too many men call and he is asked to serve it. Penalty expires, but as soon as he gets out of the box, a shot from the point gets tipped in. His team loses 3-0

So in the paper the next day, his stat line reads: 0G 0A 0Pts and is a -3. Causing those who never even saw the game to say, "Wow, he must have really been a pile of shit last night"

 

[elocomotive]

To further that earlier point, imagine if in the same game, that player steps onto the ice for another shift, and instantly one of his teammates turns the puck over in front of his own net resulting in another goal. Third period hits, our friend gets some PP time, and has two shots ring off the goalpost. Later on, his team gets a too many men call and he is asked to serve it. Penalty expires, but as soon as he gets out of the box, a shot from the point gets tipped in. His team loses 3-0

LOL. I take your point, but what are the odds of 3 goals being scored within a second of the same player stepping on the ice in the same game.

 

[Darkstone42]

LOL. I take your point, but what are the odds of 3 goals being scored within a second of the same player stepping on the ice in the same game.

That's not likely to happen, but with most stats contingent upon luck, the way +/- is, they usually even out over time. It takes +/- a comparatively long time to regress to its mean. So if a player is unlucky in that way once or twice, it's going to take a really long time for him to get the good luck to even it out.

 

[juliansteed]

gotta disagree.

by that reasoning, you could argue that Scott Mellanby was a comparable hockey player to Pavel Bure.
about twice the amount of game, but similar production over their career

Bure - 702 games, 437 goals, 779 pts
Mellanby - 1,431 games, 364 goals, 840 pts.


just doesn't pass the sniff test, as far as I'm concerned,
and neither does Lidstrom > Orr

Yeah I get where you are coming from. I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here. Even though I'm hardly qualified to have an opinion since Orr was before my time, I'd probably put him ahead of Lidstrom too. I just don't think that the writers' point of view is as ridiculous as most (myself included initially) seem to think given the reasoning that he states. That being said I probably worded my previous post poorly (or displayed poor use of math/internet geek symbols ). I don't think there is much debate as to who had more talent when healthy, but I think who had the better overall career is at least debatable. Although Orr still has more Norris trophies despite his shortened career and at the time the article was written it would have been by an even wider margin. Its scary to think what could have been if he stayed healthy and played into his mid to late 30s.

Now to counter your perfectly reasonable analogy I wish I could think of specific examples but I can't so I'll have to go with a hypothetical one. What if a young AHL goalie gets a call up because of a minor injury to a superstar goalie. He rides the bench for a few games as the regular back-up gets all the starts. He finally gets some action and gets a shutout in his only appearance. Then the star goalie comes back and he gets sent back to the AHL because they figure it would be better for his development than being a backup. Then at some point while playing in the AHL he suffers some type of career ending injury. So he played 1 game and got a shutout. His save percentage is 1.000 and his GAA is 0.00. Does this make him a HOF goalie? Obviously my example is more extreme than yours but like I said I couldn't think of any specific examples and just decided to use an extreme hypothetical one. But the point is there are extreme cases for both sides that obviously show certain points of view are not flawless. I guess its all about trying to meet somewhere in the middle and being reasonable. I think a case can be made either way as to whether or not this guy was being reasonable.

Also thanks Eloco. Reps to you both, in the unlikely event that I actually remember once I'm able to give more out.

 

[SLY]

I still don't think Lidstrom should have won the Norris THIS year. I'm sorry, but -2 is -2, no matter how you want to slice it.

This.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I've never watched Orr play so it's tough to say, but I find this to be one of the more fascinating arguments in hockey. Based on what I do know, I agree with the writer that the injuries and shortened career for Orr is what gives Lidstrom the nod, however I completely understand the argument for Orr. Another similar argument is how would Mario have compared to Gretzky if health wasn't an issue for him?

 

[puckhead]

to me it still just comes down to this:

asking who is the better player is a very different question than asking who had the better career.
it seems he's asked the former, but answered the latter

 

[beantownmaniac]

I've never watched Orr play so it's tough to say, but I find this to be one of the more fascinating arguments in hockey. Based on what I do know, I agree with the writer that the injuries and shortened career for Orr is what gives Lidstrom the nod, however I completely understand the argument for Orr. Another similar argument is how would Mario have compared to Gretzky if health wasn't an issue for him?

Let me put it this way:

1-Orr did as much, if not more, in 9 years than 90% of the defensemen do in twice that long.

2-Orr took over games at both ends and was feared.

3-If Orr had played as long as someone like Lidstrom, he would have set records for defensemen that would NEVER be touched

4-Orr is 4th all time in points per game. 4th!!! The next closest defenseman is Coffey at 27th. Lidstrom is 215th

NHL All-Time Points per Game Leaders

I rest my case

Oh, and by the way: in 1969–70, Orr doubled his scoring total from the previous season, to 120 points, six shy of the league record and led the league in scoring. As of 2011, Orr is the only defenceman in history to win the Art Ross Trophy as the league's leading scorer. In addition to the Norris and the Art Ross, Orr captured the first of three consecutive Hart Trophies as regular-season MVP and later won the Conn Smythe Trophy for his playoff performance, becoming the only player in history to win four major NHL awards in one season.