ATD 2012 - Draft Thread I

[Dreakmur]

Because Harvey was a defense-first player at even strength who didn't join the offense - instead he spearheaded the transition game and controlled the pace of the game from the backend.

I think you are underestimating the amount that Harvey joined the attack at even stength.

Do you really believe there is no difference between putting up points at even strength and running a powerplay for a defenseman?

Didn't say they were. Just trying to understand why you think Harvey is significantly better at running a PP than Bourque.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Didn't say they were. Just trying to understand why you think Harvey is significantly better at running a PP than Bourque.

Maybe you should re-read either of my two posts where I said they are basically even on the powerplay.

They are both in the first tier of (non-Orr) PP QBs.

Do you mean where I called Harvey a better QB while Bouque was a better shooter? I think Harvey had some of the best hockey sense of any player ever (so he'd have vision) and I think he was a slightly better passer. Bourque was a better shooter. That was just nitpicking their skillsets - I think their effectiveness on the PP should be similar.

 

[Dreakmur]

Harvey was 2nd in Hart voting as soon as he was traded away from a stacked team.

Of course, he was also the coach that season, so his "value" might have been measured twice.

Other than that, I see a lot of judging defensemen by their point totals going on.

Offense is the biggest reason Bourque is better than Harvey.

What other measurement woud you like to see?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What other measurement woud you like to see?

I've already posted in both this thread and in the Top Defensemen Project why I think Harvey was better

It's clear you value point totals from defensemen more than I do, so I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other.

I think Bourque has a case based on longevity, but five year peak has to go to Harvey.

 

[Dreakmur]

Maybe you should re-read either of my two posts where I said they are basically even on the powerplay.

That's after you agreed that Bourque was significantly better at even strength.

That means you think Harvey runs a PP significantly better than Bourque does. I'm asking what he does.

Do you mean where I called Harvey a better QB while Bouque was a better shooter? I think Harvey had some of the best hockey sense of any player ever (so he'd have vision) and I think he was a slightly better passer. Bourque was a better shooter. That was just nitpicking their skillsets - I think their effectiveness on the PP should be similar.

No, I mean where you called their ability to run a PP equal....

Bourque is an elite shooter and an elite passer. Harvey is not an elite shooter, but he is an elite passer. Even if you beleive Harvey is a slighgtly better passer, that doesn't outweigh Bourque's significant edge in shooting.

You want to limit Harvey's effectiveness, take away the passes and force him to shoot. You can't do that with Bourque, since he's dangerous no matter what you leave open. Seems to me it should be obvious who would run the better PP.

 

[Dreakmur]

t's clear you value point totals from defensemen more than I do, so I don't think either of us will be able to convince the other.

When two guys are both elite defensively, why wouldn't a significant difference in offense break the tie?

I think Bourque has a case based on longevity, but five year peak has to go to Harvey.

Post the 5 seasons you want me to compare for Doug Harvey.....

 

[vecens24]

Yeah I personally have no desire to get into this argument about Bourque/Harvey, but as Harvey's owner I will say something: I do believe that Harvey is pretty clearly better defensively. I can't really prove that right now as I'm getting my hair cut, but that was particularly my reasoning. EB's bio I posted in the bio thread has quite a few references calling him the best defensive defenseman players have ever seen for instance. With the way I'm building my team that was the reason I picked Harvey over Bourque. I think they're extremely close, but another part of the reason I traded up from 8 with LF was because I knew I'd e happy with either of those two, but I particularly didn't want Shore because I felt like his positional defensive game (or compared to the other two lack thereof) wouldn't fit the style I wanted to build the team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's after you agreed that Bourque was significantly better at even strength.

That means you think Harvey runs a PP significantly better than Bourque does. I'm asking what he does.

I said Bourque's even strength offense is better than Harvey's.

No, I mean where you called their ability to run a PP equal....

Bourque is an elite shooter and an elite passer. Harvey is not an elite shooter, but he is an elite passer. Even if you beleive Harvey is a slighgtly better passer, that doesn't outweigh Bourque's significant edge in shooting.

You want to limit Harvey's effectiveness, take away the passes and force him to shoot. You can't do that with Bourque, since he's dangerous no matter what you leave open. Seems to me it should be obvious who would run the better PP.

And yet statistically, Harvey was the best of his era.

When two guys are both elite defensively, why wouldn't a significant difference in offense break the tie?

It would if they were actually tied. Which they aren't.

 

[chaosrevolver]

The Winnipeg Saints select the very saintly D Eddie Shore

1929 and 1939 Stanley Cup Champion
1933, 1935, 1936, 1938 Hart Trophy Winner
1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1936, 1938, 1939 1st Team All-Star
1934 2nd Team All-Star

Legends of Hockey

Have you had the chance to read the book on him? I am currently reading it so if I find any interesting quotes about him, I'll PM them to you if you would like.

 

[Dreakmur]

I said Bourque's even strength offense is better than Harvey's.

That's my point.

There must be something that Harvey does, exclusively on the PP, that somehow makes him equal.

And yet statistically, Harvey was the best of his era.

The best what of his era?

It would if they were actually tied. Which they aren't.

As I said before, it's impossible to prove, or even suggest, that one is better defensively than the other.

However, even if you beleive Harvey is better defensively, the gap is not significant, and it certainly does not compare to Bourque's advantage in offensive play, which is very significant.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

However, even if you beleive Harvey is better defensively, the gap is not significant, and it certainly does not compare to Bourque's advantage in offensive play, which is very significant.

One of the most important jobs of a #1 defenseman is controlling the pace and flow of a game, and Harvey was better at it than anyone but Orr.

I get that there is a case for Bourque but this apparent formula that you use, "Offense (measurable) + Defense (not much difference between elite guys)," isn't it.

Anyway, it's really not worth my effort to argue in detail about players neither of us drafted. The HOH Top defenseman project would have been a good place to discuss this, but that ship has saled.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Didn't have time to try and weigh in on this since I made the pick while in class.

As far as the PP thing goes, having stronger ES offensive numbers does imply being better on the PP, and we might give it to Bourque since we lack PP numbers (to my knowledge) duing Harvey's time, but it's not necessarily true that Bourque is better on the PP. I'd lean on Bourqe on numbers, but I'd have to examine quotes more before taking an affirmative stance.

Personally since I like longevity and career value over peak value I think I prefer Bourque to Harvey.

Borrow from Dreak again in the defensemen project:

Norris Voting:
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd*, 2nd* Edit: 4th, 6th
Bourqe - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th

After eliminating the equal finishes....
Harvey - 1st, 1st Edit: 6th
Bourque - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th

Hart Voting:
Harvey - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 5th
Bourque - 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th

After eliminating the equals....
Harvey - 3rd, 5th
Bourque - 2nd, 6th, 8th, 10th

Regular Season Point Finishes
Harvey – 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th
Bourque – 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th

After eliminating equals....
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 10th
Bourque - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th

Play-off Point Finishes:
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 5th
Bourque - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th

After eliminating equals....
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd
Bourque - 2nd, 5th

Perhaps not new to anyone; we all know Bourque has immense longevity, but I think it's impact is stronger drawn out like this.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Didn't have time to try and weigh in on this since I made the pick while in class.

As far as the PP thing goes, having stronger ES offensive numbers does imply being better on the PP, and we might give it to Bourque since we lack PP numbers (to my knowledge) duing Harvey's time, but it's not necessarily true that Bourque is better on the PP. I'd lean on Bourqe on numbers, but I'd have to examine quotes more before taking an affirmative stance.

We have PP vs. ES scoring stats for the era, just not plus minus.

Anyway, you're leaning on quotes, Harvey is the better PP QB easily, since contemporaries fall over each other trying to lavish his PP ability more than the next guy. I think they're probably about equal.

Perhaps not new to anyone; we all know Bourque has immense longevity, but I think it's impact is stronger drawn out like this.

Nope it's not news. All it shows is that Bourque had greater longevity. Compare Bourque to Orr that way and you can make Bourque look better.

Edit: Just noticed that the numbers you're using aren't even right. I'm not going through it in detail, but you're missing at least one 4th place finish for the Norris for Harvey.

 

[Leafs Forever]

We have PP vs. ES scoring stats for the era, just not plus minus.

Anyway, you're leaning on quotes, Harvey is the better PP QB easily, since contemporaries fall over each other trying to lavish his PP ability more than the next guy. I think they're probably about equal.

Nope it's not news. All it shows is that Bourque had greater longevity. Compare Bourque to Orr that way and you can make Bourque look better.

Well if we have stats, I'd say this argument would be easily settled by a comparison of them.

Bourque vs Orr and Bourque vs Harvey in such a comparison is quite different; Orr dominated like no other. Degree of domination between Bourque and Harvey in their years as the best, accounting somewhat for competition, is likely a lot closer.

Edit: Seems so. I fixed it in accordance with the Norris trophy voting: complete record thread.

 

[Velociraptor]

Does it matter before LeafsForever picks?

Anybody have LL on Facebook? I know seventies does.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I don't think that's why his stuck has decreased. I think it has a lot more to do with our collectively improved research methods and understanding of what the numbers mean across different eras.

Don't take this the wrong way but that seems like revisionist history to me. The consensus has grown That Harvey is greater than Shore (And even that is debatable depending on circumstance.) But don't extend beyond that. He was a force of nature in his day and too much emphasis is put on misdirection when looking at him. Even know, people don't want to accept he was as good as he was.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Shore's stock has decreased since 2008, when he was declared the second best defenseman of time based largely off an uncritical look at his Hart record. That said, he's one of a few guys with a case as the second best defenseman of all time, though I don't agree with it.

 

[Dreakmur]

One of the most important jobs of a #1 defenseman is controlling the pace and flow of a game, and Harvey was better at it than anyone but Orr.

What evidence is there to support the claim that Harvey was better at controlling the game than Bourque?

Both guys controlled the game pretty damn well.

I get that there is a case for Bourque but this apparent formula that you use, "Offense (measurable) + Defense (not much difference between elite guys)," isn't it.

I weigh everything a player brings to the table, and then weigh the total value. It is tougher to measure things other than offense, but I try to fairly do so.

What proof do you have that Harvey was better defensively than Bourque? Even if you think you have proof, how much better was he?

As I've said in the past, if I had to rank one guy as better defensively, it would be Harvey, but the gap is small enough that they are essentially even when it comes time to evaluate their whole games.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Shore's stock has decreased since 2008, when he was declared the second best defenseman of time based largely off an uncritical look at his Hart record. That said, he's one of a few guys with a case as the second best defenseman of all time, though I don't agree with it.

The thing is, he's so different from the other contenders. Guys like Bourque and Harvey are foundational. They are the solid tempo pacers that a team is built around. They are the fortress walls that protect and hide the flaws of their teammates. Shore is one of the few ballista bolts in history capable of cracking and shattering those walls. Yes, he can miss sometimes. And sometimes he can even backfire. But when a player like Shore is on the mark, no amount of control or stability matters. He is the yang to Harvey and Bourque's yin. And while building around Bourque and Harvey is easier. There aren't enough players like Shore to ensure every team has one...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Oh and one point about Bourque vs Harvey.

They may be roughly equal as PPQBs but remember, Harvey invented the modern PPQB. That has to count for something.

 

[Dreakmur]

Harvey invented the modern PPQB.

Sorry, but that's a load of crap...

Just like Eddie Shore didn't invent rushing from the defense.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Sorry, but that's a load of crap...

Just like Eddie Shore didn't invent rushing from the defense.

Obviously Shore didn't invent rushing d-men.(I think we've established that no one invented rushing d-men as it probably existed prior to organized hockey leagues.) But where is your evidence that Harvey (With credit to his coach) wasn't the first modern QB? There is plenty of evidence that PPs were run very different prior to Harvey. In the 30's a d-man getting PP time was rare and an honour for the d-men. Shore being one of the few who weren't a converted forward getting time. And then latter the Maple Leafs had tremendous success with a four forward one d-man as anchor PP system. (And yes, Harvey played with a forward on the other point but it was in a different format, one where Harvey as the defenseman was the primary playmaker and the other forward on a point was a shooter.)

 

[Dreakmur]

But where is your evidence that Harvey (With credit to his coach) wasn't the first modern QB?

Just because he was the first, which he may or may not be, doesn't mean he invented it. The game of hockey evolves over time, and players get way too much credit for "inventing" things.

There is plenty of evidence that PPs were run very different prior to Harvey. In the 30's a d-man getting PP time was rare and an honour for the d-men.

That doesn't mean Harvey invented anything.

Shore being one of the few who weren't a converted forward getting time.

Shore actually did play forward until he was 23. Later in his caree, once forward passing was allowed, Shore actually became more of a passer than a rusher.

And then latter the Maple Leafs had tremendous success with a four forward one d-man as anchor PP system. (And yes, Harvey played with a forward on the other point but it was in a different format, one where Harvey as the defenseman was the primary playmaker and the other forward on a point was a shooter.)

That's coaching, not Doug Havey's invention.

Coaches of the past didn't appreciate skilled defensemen the way many current coaches do. As a result, there were few defensemen who were skilled enough to handle the puck and make plays. As a result, many coaches used forwards, who had the puck skills defensemen lacked, to play the point on the PP.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What evidence is there to support the claim that Harvey was better at controlling the game than Bourque?

Both guys controlled the game pretty damn well.



I weigh everything a player brings to the table, and then weigh the total value. It is tougher to measure things other than offense, but I try to fairly do so.

What proof do you have that Harvey was better defensively than Bourque? Even if you think you have proof, how much better was he?

As I've said in the past, if I had to rank one guy as better defensively, it would be Harvey, but the gap is small enough that they are essentially even when it comes time to evaluate their whole games.

How often is Bourque's ability to control the pace of a game compared to Orr? Every bio that talks about Harvey talks about that over any other quality of his game.

It's pretty tough to compare Harvey and Bourque without mentioning undrafteds though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just because he was the first, which he may or may not be, doesn't mean he invented it. The game of hockey evolves over time, and players get way too much credit for "inventing" things.



That doesn't mean Harvey invented anything.



Shore actually did play forward until he was 23. Later in his caree, once forward passing was allowed, Shore actually became more of a passer than a rusher.



That's coaching, not Doug Havey's invention.

Coaches of the past didn't appreciate skilled defensemen the way many current coaches do. As a result, there were few defensemen who were skilled enough to handle the puck and make plays. As a result, many coaches used forwards, who had the puck skills defensemen lacked, to play the point on the PP.

Young Harvey clashed with his coach because of his unorthodox style. Eventually the coach realized that Harvey was right. Obviously it took an innovative coach to allow Harvey to do his thing, but some credit has to go to Doug.