Doug Harvey's playoff scoring

[overpass]

Doug Harvey's playoff scoring compared to his regular season scoring is consistent with a player who could play at a high level offensively, but only did so when his team needed it.

During the 1956-1960 Montreal dynasty, Doug Harvey scored at a notably higher level in the playoffs than in the regular season. He scored 8 goals and 40 points in 49 playoff games (0.82 P/GP), and in the same regular seasons he scored 30 goals and 182 points in 327 GP (0.56 P/GP).

Not only did Harvey score at a higher rate in the playoffs, he tended to score when the game was close, and not so much when his team had a multiple goal lead.

Here are the scoring totals for the 1956-1960 Habs in the playoffs in several game situations.

Trailing (27 team GF)

Player	G	A	P	%
Dickie Moore	4​	7​	11​	41%​
Jean Beliveau	3​	7​	10​	37%​
Bernie Geoffrion	5​	4​	9​	33%​
Maurice Richard	4​	3​	7​	26%​
Doug Harvey	1​	6​	7​	26%​
Henri Richard	3​	3​	6​	22%​

Tied (58 team GF)

Player	G	A	P	%
Bernie Geoffrion	5​	17​	22​	38%​
Doug Harvey	3​	14​	17​	29%​
Dickie Moore	6​	10​	16​	28%​
Jean Beliveau	10​	6​	16​	28%​
Henri Richard	3​	11​	14​	24%​
Maurice Richard	8​	4​	12​	21%​

Leading by 1 (42 team GF)

Player	G	A	P	%
Bernie Geoffrion	9​	9​	18​	43%​
Doug Harvey	3​	9​	12​	29%​
Dickie Moore	5​	6​	11​	26%​
Jean Beliveau	4​	6​	10​	24%​
Henri Richard	3​	7​	10​	24%​
Maurice Richard	5​	3​	8​	19%​

Leading by 2+ (55 team GF)

Player	G	A	P	%
Jean Beliveau	11​	8​	19​	35%​
Dickie Moore	6​	13​	19​	35%​
Bernie Geoffrion	10​	8​	18​	33%​
Henri Richard	4​	14​	18​	33%​
Maurice Richard	8​	9​	17​	31%​
Doug Harvey	1​	3​	4​	7%​

Doug Harvey scored at a comparable rate to Montreal's top five forwards while the team was trailing, tied, and leading by 1 goal. But when the team was leading by 2 goals, he basically stopped scoring.

Looking only at playoff goals while Montreal was trailing, tied, or leading by 1, Harvey scored 7 goals and 36 points on 127 team goals, meaning he had a point on 28% of team goals in this situation. 28% is comparable to overall playoff scoring numbers of several great post-expansion offensive defencemen.

Denis Potvin from 1976-1983: 44 goals and 129 points on 483 team goals (27%)
Ray Bourque from 1983-1994: 30 goals and 118 points on 425 team goals (28%)
Paul Coffey from 1984-1987: 24 goals and 80 points on 320 team goals (25%)
Nicklas Lidstrom from 1998-2007: 23 goals and 89 points on 313 team goals (28%)
Cale Makar from 2020-2024: 20 goals and 74 points on 245 team goals (30%)

Bobby Orr from 1968-1975: 26 goals and 92 points on 287 team goals (32%)
Brian Leetch from 1992-1997: 24 goals and 80 points on 233 team goals (34%)
Erik Karlsson from 2012-2019: 7 goals and 47 points on 161 team goals (29%)

There is reason to believe that Doug Harvey played at a high level offensively when his team needed him to do so, and played more conservatively in less important situations, such as the regular season and when his team was leading by 2 or more. Harvey's improved offensive performance may be an important reason why Montreal went 40-9 in the playoffs during these 5 seasons and outperformed their regular season records.

Edit: Corrected team GF totals when tied, I was missing 4 goals. Harvey had a point on 28% of team goals while trailing/tied/leading by 1, not 29%

Click to read more...

 

[blogofmike]

From 1958-1960 Montreal went through a run of 5 straight series wins without facing a winning team.

Did most of the scoring came against those opponents?

 

[overpass]

From 1958-1960 Montreal went through a run of 5 straight series wins without facing a winning team.

Did most of the scoring came against those opponents?

Harvey played 2 series against each team.

12 points vs Boston
8 points vs Toronto
7 points vs Detroit
7 points vs Chicago
6 points vs Rangers

Boston was bad in the 60s but in the late 50s they had the most playoff wins of any Montreal opponent (3).

"Without facing a winning team" - that's one way to put it. Another is that those 5 straight opponents were a combined 8 games under 0.500, and the 6th was +9. Here are the games above 0.500 for each opponent.

1956 NYR: +4
1956 DET: +6
1957 NYR: -4
1957 BOS: +10
1958 DET: 0
1958 BOS: -1
1959 CHI: -1
1959 TOR: -5
1960 CHI: -1
1960 TOR: +9

In a 6 team league with an all time great team and no bad teams - i.e. the late 50s NHL - a good team can finish below 0.500. And that's often what happened. I don't see any meaningful patterns in Harvey's scoring by opponent.

 

[overpass]

Breaking Harvey's 1956-1960 playoff scoring down by EV and PP:

EV: 6 G, 17 A, 23 P
PP: 2 G, 15 A, 17 P

After excluding all goals scored with a lead of 2 or more:

EV: 6 G, 14 A, 20 P
PP: 1 G, 15 A, 16 P

Again excluding all Montreal goals scored with a lead of 2 or more, Harvey had a point on:
20 of 89 Montreal EV goals (22%)
16 of 35 Montreal PP goals (46%)

Comparing to the other great offensive defencemen in the playoffs*:

1968-1975 Orr: 25% EV, 49% PP
1976-1983 Potvin: 18% EV, 51% PP
1984-1987 Coffey: 21% EV, 46% PP
1983-1994 Bourque: 21% EV, 50% PP
1992-1997 Leetch: 25% EV, 57% PP
1998-2007 Lidstrom: 16% EV, 51% PP
2012-2019 Karlsson: 26% EV, 44% PP
2017-2024 Hedman: 17% EV, 51% PP
2020-2024 Makar: 22% EV, 53% PP
2022-2024 Bouchard: 20% EV, 60% PP

So - excluding goals scored when Montreal was leading by 2+ - Harvey's points as a % of team EV goals (22%) was similar to Makar, Coffey, and Bourque, below Karlsson, Leetch, and Orr, and above Potvin, Hedman, and Lidstrom.

And in the same situations, Harvey's points as a % of team PP goals (46%) was just slightly below most of these defencemen - several of whom were around 50-51% - and was most similar to Karlsson and Orr.

So it looks like Doug Harvey unleashed offensively in the playoffs had a similar role in his team's offence as the great post-expansion offensive defencemen, even though he played before Bobby Orr.

*I didn't take the time to remove goals scored with a lead of 2+ for these defencemen. Because it would take a long time, and because I don't have any reason to believe their numbers would be different. The point is to provide an overall baseline for comparison of offensive results, not to investigate each player individually to see if he took it easy with the lead like Harvey did.

 

[blogofmike]

Here's a breakdown of Harvey by round.

Year	Opponent	Opp PTS	Tm PTS	GP	ESP	PPP	Home	Road	G	A1	A2	PTS	TmGF	Share
1949	Detroit (1)	75	65	7	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	14	7%
1950	NYR (4)	67	77	5	1	1	2	0	0	1	1	2	7	29%
1951	Detroit (1)	101	65	6	0	2	1	1	0	0	2	2	13	15%
1951	Toronto (2)	95	65	5	3	0	1	2	0	2	1	3	10	30%
1952	Boston (4)	66	78	7	2	1	1	2	0	2	1	3	18	17%
1952	Detroit (1)	100	78	4	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	0%
1953	Chicago (4)	69	75	7	2	1	1	2	0	1	2	3	18	17%
1953	Boston (3)	69	75	5	2	0	1	1	0	1	1	2	16	13%
1954	Boston (4)	74	81	4	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	16	6%
1954	Detroit (1)	88	81	6	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	12	8%
1955	Boston (4)	67	93	5	2	1	3	0	0	2	1	3	16	19%
1955	Detroit (1)	95	93	7	2	3	4	1	0	4	1	5	20	25%
1956	NYR (3)	74	100	5	0	4	3	1	2	2	0	4	24	17%
1956	Detroit (2)	76	100	5	2	1	2	1	0	1	2	3	18	17%
1957	NYR (4)	66	88	5	0	2	1	1	0	0	2	2	15	13%
1957	Boston (3)	80	88	5	2	3	4	1	0	3	2	5	22	23%
1958	Detroit (3)	70	96	4	2	2	2	2	0	1	3	4	19	21%
1958	Boston (4)	69	96	6	5	2	3	4	2	2	3	7	16	44%
1959	Chicago (3)	69	91	6	4	2	5	1	1	3	2	6	21	29%
1959	Toronto (4)	65	91	5	5	1	5	1	0	3	3	6	18	33%
1960	Chicago (3)	69	92	4	1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	14	7%
1960	Toronto (2)	79	92	4	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	2	15	13%
1961	Chicago (3)	75	92	6	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	15	7%
1962	Toronto (2)	85	64	6	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	1	15	7%
1968	Philly (1)	73	70	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	-
1968	Minny (4)	69	70	5	0	2	1	1	0	2	0	2	-
1968	Montreal (1)	94	70	2	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	1	-
1956-60	Dynasty			49	23	17	28	12	8	15	17	40	182	22%
1957-59	Peak			31	18	12	20	10	3	12	15	30	111	27%
1955-62	Norris Run			73	29	21	37	13	8	21	21	50	248	20%
1949-62	First Run			129	40	28	44	24	8	31	29	68	374	18%
	Total			137	40	32	45	27	8	35	29	72	-	-

1957-59 is clearly the high water mark for Harvey numerically. And it looks like the pattern is that he pops off against weak opponents from 1957-59. The Bruins in 1958 have a good regular season record, but might have put up more of a fight with Terry Sawchuk (.618 pts % with him and a .528 without him, though that's still over .500) instead of C58's least favourite O6 goalie, Don Simmons playing in net.

I would not say this is a time when there were no weak teams. From 1957-59 there's a lull in good opponents. The league didn't get worse in 1961, the 60s Black Hawks got to be far better. The 60s Leafs were better than the 50s Leafs. The 60s Wings were better than the late 50s Wings, who collapse after 1956.

Those 31 games are 24% of his pre-Blues playoff games. They represent 44% of his total points, and a relatively high share of secondary assists (15 of his career 32). Harvey has a very high share of secondary points in general (50%) during this run.

Usually when defenders put up their biggest numbers, they're a little more closely involved in the play. Especially in the Original 6 era.

Defender	Primary	Secondary	Primary Point %
Thomson 47-49	9​	0​	1.000​
Kelly 52-54	14​	2​	0.875​
Harvey 57-59	15​	15​	0.500​
Pilote 61-63	21​	9​	0.700​
Horton 62-64	17​	7​	0.708​
Tremblay 68-69, 71	21​	10​	0.677​
Orr 70-72	40​	16​	0.714​
Robinson 77-79	27​	21​	0.563​
Potvin 81-83	39​	27​	0.591​
Coffey 84-86	43​	26​	0.623​
Bourque 88-90	25​	17​	0.595​
Lidstrom 07-09	31​	16​	0.660​
Keith 10-16	24​	21​	0.533​
Doughty 12-14	26​	13​	0.667​
Hedman 20-22	38​	21​	0.644​
Makar 20-22	34​	20​	0.630​

Aside from the weaker schedule, Harvey probably had a little good fortune from 57-59, when he had 1 fewer secondary assist than peak Bobby Orr did (Orr played in 5 more games).

 

[Michael Farkas]

"Primary" points (snore...) for defensemen is...rough. Just out of sheer morbid curiosity: does that mix all points together or is it just ES?

 

[MadLuke]

"Primary" points (snore...) for defensemen is...rough. Just out of sheer morbid curiosity: does that mix all points together or is it just ES?

I would also hesitate a bit for the power play points leaders to judge even strength points too much, there are some minutes and scoring effect balancing that could be occurring.

If we look at McDavid assists, when the Oilers had a 33% power play last year he had a ton of them (50), this year only 37.

yet he had 100 assists this year versus 89 last year, the oilers needed for his line to score more goals at even strength and they did, they scored at a 4.91 goals per 60 instead of 4.0 per 60.

Sentence like when they need goals they will score more of them does not make much sense for most players (and teams) it always do but it would be a small scoring effect, they try has much as they can, but a player like Lemieux or McDavid ? A team like those late 50s Habs ?

I would at least keep an open mind that the scoring effect could be bigger than usual to the points that scoring a lot on the PP could deflate EV scoring, could just be an impression, but it seem to be to often observe some balancing to the mean effect.

 

[overpass]

1957-59 is clearly the high water mark for Harvey numerically. And it looks like the pattern is that he pops off against weak opponents from 1957-59. The Bruins in 1958 have a good regular season record, but might have put up more of a fight with Terry Sawchuk (.618 pts % with him and a .528 without him, though that's still over .500) instead of C58's least favourite O6 goalie, Don Simmons playing in net.

Since you've posted the career numbers for Harvey, I'll explain why I drew the line in 1955 as the starting point for his numbers. Not that you've disagreed.

First, obviously he didn't score as much in the playoffs before 1955 - in fact he had zero goals in 68 playoff games - so I think he was playing more defensively and wasn't so involved in the offense.

Why was he playing more defensively? He had a different coach, for one. While Harvey was a first team all star under Irvin and won his first Norris in Irvin's final season. I think Toe Blake gave Harvey more freedom offensively.

Second, Harvey moved from playing mostly LD to playing RD at even strength. When Toe Blake took over, the veteran RHD Butch Bouchard became a spare and then retired. Harvey and Tom Johnson between them held down the right side on defense for the next few seasons, and Harvey's strong offensive performances in the playoffs were while playing RD at even strength and the left point on the power play. (And he wasn't really a goal scorer from the left side of the power play either, even while he was scoring goals at EV from the right side).

I would not say this is a time when there were no weak teams. From 1957-59 there's a lull in good opponents. The league didn't get worse in 1961, the 60s Black Hawks got to be far better. The 60s Leafs were better than the 50s Leafs. The 60s Wings were better than the late 50s Wings, who collapse after 1956.

If you want to compare the late 50s Wings, Hawks, and Leafs to their 60s counterparts, you have to consider that the Canadiens, Bruins, and Rangers all got worse in the 60s. So wins were easier to come by in games against those opponents. You have to look at the rosters.

If you actually look at the rosters of the Wings, were they actually better in the 60s, or did they just win more games in an easier league? The late 50s Wings still had Red Kelly and Terry Sawchuk. Howe, Delvecchio, and Pronovost weren't old yet. Maybe only Norm Ullman was an advantage for the 60s teams. Mid-30s Bill Gadsby was a good add but hardly Red Kelly. Those 60s Wings lacked depth and were all about the stars, and the stars were there in the late 50s too!

The Leafs did have better rosters in the 60s, thanks to the major additions of Dave Keon and Red Kelly at centre. And yet the Punch Imlach teams that Montreal faced in the playoffs in 59 and 60 were pretty close to being the dynasty roster, they just needed the upgrade at C to put them over the top after the Habs declined.

Similarly, the 60s Hawks were definitely better than the mid 50s teams, but the 59 and 60 teams that Montreal played in the playoffs were pretty much the 60s team. The main difference is that Stan Mikita was still a kid and not yet an all-star. But Hull, Pilote, and Hall were all there, and they had better depth at forward and on defence than later editions, including Ted Lindsay and Ed Litzenberger up front.

 

[overpass]

On the topic of Doug Harvey, I came across this article in La Patrie du Dimanche, Dec 6, 1959. Bert Souliere collected the opinion of several hockey people about Doug Harvey.

La Patrie

books.google.ca

I've translated it from French to English.

Red Storey, longtime NHL referee:
I have been involved in hockey for thirty years and with all sincerity, I must admit that Doug Harvey is the greatest defense player in the history of our national sport. I have seen Harvey play since he lined up with the Royal juniors, and I have always followed with interest his rise in hockey. He's a real general on the ice, a very cunning player, who surely merits a place in the pantheon of hockey immortals. I don't believe I could live long enough to see another rearguard of Doug Harvey's caliber.

Frank Carlin, general manager of the Montreal Royal:
I have watched many good defense players in my time, but Harvey is without doubt the best of all. He's a complete player, an excellent skater, an ace at holding an opponent in check, briefly, a player who has a style all to himself. Harvey is alone in his class and I don't exaggerate when I say he is better than Eddie Shore.

Jimmy Orlando, former Detroit defenseman:
Doug Harvey is definitely the best defense player to wear the colours of a National Hockey League club in the last ten years. He possesses a remarkable "sang-froid", makes wonderful plays for his teammates, and is a real rock of Gibraltar on the blueline. Harvey is a great leader.

Joe Belanger, secretary-treasurer of Canadian Athletic promotion:
Doug Harvey is by a thousand yards the best defense player in the history of the Canadiens hockey club. He's a very great star and you would have to wait many years before finding another rear-guard of his caliber. He's a very intelligent athlete and I must confess that we should elect him into the Hall of Fame now.

Sylvio Mantha, former Montreal defenseman:
There is no doubt that Doug Harvey is the best defense player to line up in the National Hockey League in the last ten years. Offensively and defensively, he has no equal. Harvey is very skillful. He is cunning at anticipating the game. He's a gentleman, a player who knows how to use all legal means to win a game. He's a great asset to hockey in general.

Georges Mantha, former Montreal player:
Doug Harvey is definitely the Eddie Shore of his time. Shore was however more spectacular than the current ace of the Canadiens. Doug Harvey is a player more intelligent than Shore was, but the latter was much tougher. Harvey is a general of the game, one of the greatest defense players in the history of professional hockey.

Jean-Charles Pedneault, former player for the Banking League and with the Montreal Royals:
Doug Harvey is a very brilliant player who knows what to do when he has the puck. He facilitates the job of his forwards by his scientific passes. He's a player a club can put their trust in. He is undoubtedly the principal pillar of the Canadiens on the defense.

Gerard Dandurand, son of Leo Dandurand, former owner of Canadiens:
I have attended hockey games since 1921 and I consider Doug Harvey as a defense player superior to stars of other eras, including Eddie Shore. The latter had a lot of colour, but he made more errors than Doug Harvey. The veteran Canadiens player is extremely intelligent and is as cunning as possible. He's a natural athlete. Personally, Doug Harvey is the best defense player who's work I've seen, followed by Sprague Cleghorn and Eddie Shore.

Wildor Larochelle, former Canadiens player:
Doug Harvey is the best defense player, an athlete who belongs in the same class as Sylvio Mantha and Eddie Shore. It's very rare that Doug Harvey looks bad on any play. He is very intelligent and has all sorts of little tricks to stop an opponent. In the last ten years, no other player approaches him on defense, not even Red Kelly of the Detroit Red Wings

Newsy Lalonde:
I consider Doug Harvey as one of the greatest stars of professional hockey. He has no weaknesses as a player. He's a very elegant skater who rarely makes a false move. As a defenseman, he is complete in every way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Doug Harvey is a player more intelligent than Shore was,

Eddie Shore. The latter had a lot of colour, but he made more errors than Doug Harvey.

Personally, this is about as close to vindication as I'm going to get about my previous thoughts on Shore. This is what I see as well and tried to sell during whatever project it was. Skilled, athletic, fun to watch...but...

 

[JackSlater]

This sort of seems in keeping with his "Lazy Lightning" nickname. Definitely an interesting idea, and could explain in part why a player (Harvey in this case) has a reputation that exceeds what you find from a glance at hockeydb.

 

[jigglysquishy]

This is a couple times now that I've seen Harvey, Shore, and Cleghorn spoken of as the three best defenseman in a pre Orr context.

Makes me curious on the writer's opinions of Clancy and Kelly.

 

[Nick Hansen]

From the descriptions cited by @overpass (great work btw), Harvey kinda sounds like Lidstrom before Lidstrom existed. Very intelligent, great skater and passer but not overly physical - cunning as they say. Also described as a 'general' twice.

 

[overpass]

I'm glad others enjoyed the column of opinions on Harvey. I thought it was a fun read. I can imagine Souliere going around Toe Blake's tavern collecting these opinions.

Personally, this is about as close to vindication as I'm going to get about my previous thoughts on Shore. This is what I see as well and tried to sell during whatever project it was. Skilled, athletic, fun to watch...but...

On the one hand, yes, Harvey was a better player and smarter than Shore per multiple observers, some of whom had played against Shore.

On the other hand, it's telling that when asked for their opinion on Doug Harvey, four of ten brought up Eddie Shore unprompted. Much as you might name Bobby Orr if asked about Potvin or Bourque or Lidstrom at their peaks.

This is a couple times now that I've seen Harvey, Shore, and Cleghorn spoken of as the three best defenseman in a pre Orr context.

Makes me curious on the writer's opinions of Clancy and Kelly.

Yeah, Shore and Cleghorn are the two I've seen referenced most in all-time conversations from the 30s/40s/50s as the greatest before Harvey.

Clancy and Kelly didn't quite seem to get to that level in those various old newspaper columns I've read on the subject, despite their accolades while they played. Even Wilder Larochelle who mentions Kelly above only does so in the context of the last 10 years, and his all-time comparisons are Eddie Shore and Sylvio Mantha (who he played with for a decade).

From the descriptions cited by @overpass (great work btw), Harvey kinda sounds like Lidstrom before Lidstrom existed. Very intelligent, great skater and passer but not overly physical - cunning as they say. Also described as a 'general' twice.

"Ice general" used to be a fairly common descriptor for some of the great defenceman in the first half of the last century. It definitely evokes a sense of intelligence, organization, and leadership.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Personally, this is about as close to vindication as I'm going to get about my previous thoughts on Shore. This is what I see as well and tried to sell during whatever project it was. Skilled, athletic, fun to watch...but...

But, a 4-time Hart trophy winner.

 

[Michael Farkas]

But, a 4-time Hart trophy winner.

Yeah, I'm not asking those to be taken away...but maybe they overstate him a bit. Either way, that's not for this thread. I don't think I have anything particularly new to say on the topic right now anyhow...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

From the descriptions cited by @overpass (great work btw), Harvey kinda sounds like Lidstrom before Lidstrom existed. Very intelligent, great skater and passer but not overly physical - cunning as they say. Also described as a 'general' twice.

Good point.

I think of Harvey and Shore much like Lidstrom and Bourque.

Both sets different yet comparable players.

Bourque & Shore both carried their teams. Lidstrom & Harvey didn't have to, though they probably could have.

 

[overpass]

Red Storey, longtime NHL referee: I don't believe I could live long enough to see another rearguard of Doug Harvey's caliber.

So we all know Bobby Orr came along less than a decade after Storey made this statement. I was curious to see if Storey compared Orr to Harvey and he did. It sounds like this opinion was expressed after Orr's career, as his final judgement on the two, and he still picked Harvey.

“Doug Harvey was the best defenseman I ever saw. Bobby Orr could break open a game at any time and was an incredible player. But Harvey could take it over. If Montreal got a goal up on you and Harvey decided you weren't going to score, that was it. Go take a shower, the game is over.”
‐ referee Red Storey

What did he think when Orr joined the league? Storey wrote a column in French for Le Petit Journal at the time, and from some of his quotes he may have rated Orr over Harvey at times. After the 69-70 season he called Orr "the most sensational and effective player in the history of hockey".

(quote below are translated from French to English)

Le Petit Journal, 24 Dec, 1967, Red Storey
Wren Blair, who discovered Orr, said "In Boston, Orr will be a bigger star than Ted Williams."

Others have claimed that Orr would overshadow Eddie Shore and Doug Harvey, which is saying a lot, but the young defender of the Bruins excites us with new plays every game. In less than a year, this Orr has become a superstar, and frankly, he has absolutely no rival.
Le Petit Journal, April 6, 1969, Red Storey
No one will be surprised if I name Bobby Orr as the best defender in the National. And as long as his knees hold up, this surprising Orr will not yield to anyone else for many years. And the day when the Bruins defender can no longer overcome his handicap will be a heavy test not only for Boston, but for the entire National League.

Le Petit Journal, 19 Apr, 1970, Red Storey picks his end of season all star team and award winners.
Bobby Orr obviously represents another unanimous choice. As long as Orr remains in good health, this choice will be routine for many seasons to come. Orr is quickly revealing himself as the most sensational and effective player in the history of hockey, and we see no reason which would prevent him from receiving this voting honour at the end of each season...if he is not seriously injured.

Bobby Orr has had a simply spectacular season, and what is likely to give him the greatest satisfaction is his participation in the 76 regular season games for his team. Fears have been expressed about the strength of his knees in his first seasons. He has undergone two or three surgeries, but it does not appear that this has weakened him. He is the best skater in the entire league, and body checking doesn't affect him at all.

and later when explaining why he picked Orr over Tony Esposito for Hart, he explained

If I was forced to make a choice, I would opt for Bobby Orr. He is simply superior. I'll explain myself in this way: If Esposito was as good as Bobby Orr, he probably would have posted 40 shutouts this season.

High praise indeed for Orr.

And yet, just two weeks previously, Storey wrote what I can only describe as a troll column, in which he said that his choice for most valuable player was not Bobby Orr or Tony Esposito, but John Ferguson of Montreal. I suppose he only changed his vote because Montreal ended up missing the playoffs on a tiebreaker.

Le Petit Journal, April 5, 1970, Red Storey's column

 

[jigglysquishy]

Shore had the reputation pre Harvey of being the best defenseman ever. Sometimes you get other names thrown out in conjunction, but Shore is treated a bit like the clear cut favourite.

Shore spent what, six years of his prime, being dramatically overplayed? Contemporary reports note he plays too many minutes every game. And could get pulled off his game with dirty play and his temper. Not too terribly unlike Pronger. I know Brent Burns got thrown out as the comparable, but I see him more as a better skating stronger offensively Pronger.

I agree that his usage was more similar to Bourque than Lidstrom or Harvey. Boston was weak those years and needed him to lift the whole team. That's not a knock on any of the players, but more an indication of their management.

I see no issue with considering Harvey better than Shore but also having Shore as a top 5 dman ever.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I don't want to overstate my agreement, but I might actually be Red Storey...

 

[ImporterExporter]

From the descriptions cited by @overpass (great work btw), Harvey kinda sounds like Lidstrom before Lidstrom existed. Very intelligent, great skater and passer but not overly physical - cunning as they say. Also described as a 'general' twice.

From what I've read on Harvey, and there is a lot of readily available sources from newspapers.com, I agree with most of that, but would add that Harvey could play a much more physical game than I saw Lidstrom play at any point of his career.

 

[overpass]

This column by Tim Burke in the Montreal Gazette is the most thorough comparison I've seen of Orr and Harvey. Burke's Montreal home may colour his conclusion (edge to Harvey), but he touches on many different aspects of each of their games, and also gets Dickie Moore's opinion.

Tim Burke, Montreal Gazette, January 15, 1975, p. 11 and 13

I would suggest reading the whole thing but I'll pull a couple of quotes that are relevant to the discussion.

As soon as the Boston Bruins loom up on the Canadiens' schedule, you can tune in on the Great Debate in any tavern in the west end: "Who's the greatest - Bobby Orr or Doug Harvey?"

Unlike the Gordie Howe-Rocket Richard controversy, which for a generation drove protagonists into apoplectic rages, this one tends to be clinical in nature and usually tails off inconclusively into comparisons of the era each have dominated.

For most fans under 30, the comparison of anyone to Orr either borders on sacrilege or suggests incipient senility. For the over-30s, the debate is balanced enough so that it will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction.

Does this debate sound familiar? Plus ca change...

A few comparison points Burke made between Orr and Harvey:

First, let's get the obvious strong points of the two out of the way: No one has ever been able to skate like Bobby Orr. with his ability to change course at full speed in any direction. Only Red Kelly could come remotely close to him as an "offenceman."

Defensively, Harvey wins running away. On the power play. it's a tossup. As a penalty-killer. Harvey had no peer. Orr dominates a game, Harvey controlled it. revving it up and gearing it down as he pleased. Orr has a better shot. Harvey was a better passer. Orr can recoup from a mistake quicker. Harvey made fewer mistakes. Orr has his bad knees. Harvey was made of rubber.

Orr was made for hockey, Harvey was made for sports. Truly a man for all seasons.

Regarding Harvey's varying activity level:

Unlike Orr, who can drain himself by going all out in every game, Doug played only as vigorously as he had to. "He was happy to win a game 2-1. He didn't care about scoring that much. He preferred to let the forwards get the glory," Moore recalls.

Burke's final conclusion? In the end, he also chickens out and compares their eras, giving Harvey the edge because he starred for the greatest team in the greatest era.

So because Doug Harvey was the "quarterback" of the Canadiens when they were the best hockey team ever - at a time when the game was at its zenith, this column gives him the edge in the Orr-Harvey debate.

But that's hardly a slight on Bobby Orr. After all, he had very little to do with his date of birth.

 

[Crosby2010]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Harvey stepped up his game when it mattered the most. This is why he is often behind Orr as the best d-man of all-time. He's got at least one retro Smythe I would think.

 

[Staniowski]

Doug is the best player ever to play for the Habs.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Doug is the best player ever to play for the Habs.

I personally think Harvey was the most important player on those Habs teams from a tactical standpoint. I thought that back when we re-did the top 100 project in 2018-19.

Voting Record - Art of Sedinery, ImporterExporter, DannyGallivan

Voter Rank Player Points 1 2 Art of Sedinery 1 Wayne Gretzky 120 1 Wayne Gretzky 1 Bobby Hull Art of Sedinery 2 Bobby Orr 119 2 Bobby Orr 2 Jean Beliveau Art of Sedinery 3 Gordie Howe 118 3 Gordie Howe 3 Patrick Roy Art of Sedinery 4 Mario Lemieux 117 4 Mario Lemieux 4 Sidney Crosby Art of...

forums.hfboards.com

Montreal revered Richard and Beliveau. They booed Harvey early in his career.

But read the contemporary praise for Harvey and you'll understand why he was the straw who stirred the drink of the greatest dynasty in hockey history.

The way so many people, many of whom weren't even Canadien players/coaches/fans, talk about his generalship, hockey IQ, and near letter perfect play, paint a picture of a hockey genius. A more physical Nicklas Lidstrom, able to control the flow of a game like no other player in history before him and I'd wager Orr is the only legitimate argument from the pool of players who came after. Played LD and RD seamlessly. Didn't matter who his partner was. And there are no real questions about his abilities in any area of the ice or any phase of the game.