Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[Canadiens1958]

Better vs More Valuable

I insisted on "playing this game" because after however many times I've asked, you never told me how YOU felt about the players. If I wanted to read Hart voting records, I'd go to Page 5 of the Awards thread, thank you.

If you actually think Lidstrom was the best player in 2002 (and better than Iginla and Theodore and company), that's fine. But this is the first time you've said it. I don't think he was. No one I talked to back then thought he was. For these reasons, I'm not going to magically know that YOU thought he was, and subsequently understand why you're frustrated with the Hart voting record for defensemen.

It's not enough to say that there's a problem with the voting record, TDMM, and have the rest of us understand where you're coming from; you have to explain where you think they went wrong.


I think Lidstrom in 2000 and 2006 was better than anything from Howe and Langway, but I don't think it was better than what we saw from Pronger/Jagr/Bure and Thornton/Jagr/Kiprusoff, and that counts for something too. Despite the fact that a lot of spreadsheet posts in this forum operate under the idea that all Harts, Norrises, 1st Place Finishes, and Top 10 Finishes are created equal, I would like to think that deep down we all know better. I've evenly not so subtly said in my last post that Scott Stevens (1994) mops the floor with Corey Perry (2011).

But there is still something to be said about Nicklas Lidstrom, who people are crowning above some really major players in the history of the sport (Bourque, Shore, and Harvey for defensemen specifically; everyone not named Gretzky/Lemieux since 1979 in general), not transcending past his direct contemporaries in the other positions (which has been a shuffle of about 25 different players since 1998, meaning that this is not a case of a select group of players having a stranglehold on the trophy and nominations) and being a Top 3 player at least once in his career - both in my mind and in the collective mind of Hart voters.

If he's going to be lumped in with the 15 greatest players of all-time, I think he should've had a season that made everyone turn their head. He caught your attention in 2002 and 2006. Based upon the utter lack of outrage for him not receiving a nomination in those years, I don't think I'm in the minority in thinking that he wasn't a Top 3 guy in either year.

He peaked better than actual finalists Howe and Langway, yeah. But the real issue is that his best year was just above Sergei Zubov's best year, whose peak could be transplanted into advantageous award situations too... despite being just Sergei Zubov. Lidstrom's peak isn't high enough for the praise he gets. That's where I'm coming from here, and any comment about Hart voting records is my polite way of saying that I'm not alone in thinking that he peaked low for a supposed top player of all-time. I'm a fan of career consistency, but Ron Francis isn't in my Top 20 of All-Time either, if you catch my drift.

Would tend to agree with the complete tone and direction of your post.What is the most important aspect is that while comparing across seasons the point can be made that Lidstrom was a better player during the specific 2000 or 2006 seasons compared to Langway and Mark Howe during their Hart candidacy years it may be proven that during the same specific years, Langway and Mark Howe were more valuable.

That Lidstrom peaked low - your Zubov analogy has to be combined with your point that honours and awards despite being viewed on paper as equal are not so in fact.

The 7th Norris Trophy won by Harvey and the 7th Norris Trophy won by Lidstrom.After the 1960-61 season Doug Harvey was traded to the non-playoff New York Rangers. As player-coach his performance as the NHL's best dman won him the Norris while leading the New York Rangers to a fourth place finish and a playoff spot ahead of Gordie Howe and the Detroit Red Wings. Lidstroms 7th Norris did not have nearly the same impact.

 

[Big Phil]

Lidstrom is certainly still behind Bourque and Harvey. I assume it is just implied no one overtakes Orr right?

For starters Harvey controlled the pace of the game like few in NHL history. With all due respect for Lidstrom, I don't think he has ever done it quite like that.

As for Bourque, the guy was an all-star 19 times. Lidstrom 12 times. I think it just goes to show you the crazy longevity Bourque has which we tend to forget sometimes (I think we kind of got jaded by him after a while). It would be really hard for me to agree with a good argument that Lidstrom had the better career. I don't know anyone who saw both play that would put Lidstrom ahead of him. But is being the 4-5th best of all-time a crime? I don't think so.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Other Factors

It's hard to compare defensemen to the other positions - hockey stats for defense suck - and preventing scoring chances isn't the easiest thing to see. So both statistically and visually, it is harder for a defenseman to stand out. With basically two exceptions (Bourque 1990 and Pronger 2000), no defenseman came close to winning the Hart. But they consistently got a larger number of 2nd and 3rd place votes in the 1980s than afterwards. That's my main point.



I see what you're saying, but the same thing kind of applies to Doug Harvey, no? He really never got close to winning the Hart (but does have a better record than Lidstrom).

I mean, the kids always make the argument that it's harder to stand out now with 1) the increased talent pool and 2) hockey being as much about fitting into a system as individual talent. I think there is at least a little truth to that. It's quite possible that no player post-1995 or so will stand out, unless that guy is a Orr/Gretzky/Howe/Mario type talent. Too early to



Ron Francis isn't in my top 100, but that's another story. I'm certainly not alone in thinking Lidstrom was the most consistently dominant player of the first decade of this century. You're right that his lack of a super dominant season is something - honestly, to me the lack of a Bourque in 1990 season is enough to keep Lidstrom very slightly under Bourque. But not that far under.

There are other factors besides preventing scoring chances. The ability to turn the scoring chances that are prevented into opportunities going the other way and creating conditions for team mates and the team to play better than the sum of their parts.

Harvey, Orr, Potvin, Bourque did this throughout their careers. Shore's temperment detracted from team accomplishments at times by creating situations that the other players could not overcome.

Then you have the next level Lidstrom, Robinson, Kelly - split between forward and dman impacts,Coffey Park, Pilote Horton, Clancy.

 

[WingsFan95]

As for Bourque, the guy was an all-star 19 times. Lidstrom 12 times. I think it just goes to show you the crazy longevity Bourque has which we tend to forget sometimes (I think we kind of got jaded by him after a while). It would be really hard for me to agree with a good argument that Lidstrom had the better career. I don't know anyone who saw both play that would put Lidstrom ahead of him. But is being the 4-5th best of all-time a crime? I don't think so.

It's playoff success that gives the edge to Lidstrom. Which makes the debate closer.

It's true you can't fault Bourque for his teams but at the same time you can't not give Lidstrom extra points for his playoff successes.

Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov were the backbone of those late 90s and early 00s Wings.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

There are other factors besides preventing scoring chances. The ability to turn the scoring chances that are prevented into opportunities going the other way and creating conditions for team mates and the team to play better than the sum of their parts.

Harvey, Orr, Potvin, Bourque did this throughout their careers. Shore's temperment detracted from team accomplishments at times by creating situations that the other players could not overcome.

Then you have the next level Lidstrom, Robinson, Kelly - split between forward and dman impacts,Coffey Park, Pilote Horton, Clancy.

You so crazy!

 

[RabbinsDuck]

It's playoff success that gives the edge to Lidstrom. Which makes the debate closer.

It's true you can't fault Bourque for his teams but at the same time you can't not give Lidstrom extra points for his playoff successes.

Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov were the backbone of those late 90s and early 00s Wings.

There's no question Lidstrom is a better playoff performer, regardless of team. Adjusted stats give them exactly the same PPG, except Lidstrom played more games, won 3 more Cups and won a Conn Smythe.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It's playoff success that gives the edge to Lidstrom. Which makes the debate closer.

It's true you can't fault Bourque for his teams but at the same time you can't not give Lidstrom extra points for his playoff successes.

Yzerman, Lidstrom and Fedorov were the backbone of those late 90s and early 00s Wings.

Maybe Lidstrom does get an edge in PO success but it's so slight IMO that it holds very little weight overall.
Bourque dealing with a cheapskate owner in Boston all those years toiling on teams that don't hold a candle to even Detroit's weakest team that Lidstrom played on come pretty close to canceling each other out at the end of the day IMO.

But then it comes down to how much weight one holds to the Norris, I for one don't think this year's Norris elevated Lidstrom's argument for Top 5 list all that much. Since 97-98 Lidstrom has been a 1st Team All-Star all but one season.

But playing devil's advocate, how about less of a fact Chelios was better competition and more that Bourque needed a fantastic season to win in a tight race because he wasn't as great. How about Lidstrom creating separation by his sheer greatness?

You are doing so well, don't go ruining it with silliness now man

People can say the same of Jagr and that his scoring titles came against paltry competition because Gretzky and Lemieux weren't around.

Bringing Wayne, Mario or Orr into any comparison is always an inherently unfair and ridiculous thing to do.
Of course Jagr doesn't win as many scoring titles vs Wayne or Mario in their primes, NO ONE does though heh.
None of Bourque, Lidstrom or Chelios win a damned thing if they are up against Orr in his prime either.

I have no problem people picking Bourque over Lids, I said in another thread it was between them for 2nd place. I have inherent bias on the issue.

I also have an inherent bias...I have always had nothing but absolute hate for the Bruins, their players and their fans almost the entirety of my hockey watching life. Add on top of this that Yzerman was one of my favourite players growing up and the Wing's my second favourite team.
Yet I still have no problem picking Bourque over Lidstrom at the end of the day.

 

[Rhiessan71]

There's no question Lidstrom is a better playoff performer, regardless of team. Adjusted stats give them exactly the same PPG, except Lidstrom played more games, won 3 more Cups and won a Conn Smythe.

Adjusted Craps rears it's ugly head....shocking

Just once, I would like to see someone use Adjusted Stats in support of a point, not as the basis for it, JUST ONCE!
Lets just completely throw away the fact that Bourque was by far the more aggressive and talented offensive player or that Lidstrom played with a hell of a lot more players at any given time that could consistently put the puck in the net. Forget that some of us watched Boston's offense begin and end with Bourque for decades. Forget it all folks because a made up thing like Adjusted Stats tells us so

But hey, as long as we're using them, how about doing the same for all of Bourque's Bruin teams vs all of Lidstrom's Wings teams and see how far apart their teams really are overall.
Fair no?

 

[danincanada]

Denis Potvin. Was bigger than Orr and Harvey. Was the first to blend the elements that Orr and Harvey introduced with size and punishing physicality. Orr and Harvey would hit but lacked the size to punish physically. Potvin showed that the various attributes that Orr and Harvey brought could be learned by players who were over 6' and beyond 200 lb.

Paul Coffey brought speed to the position. Bobby Orr was an incredible skater who did things on skates that were deemed impossible until he showed that they could be done while playing defense with all the other skills short of physicality. Paul Coffey reducing the position to speed was a forerunner of the short shift game. Playing shifts upwards of two minutes would require a strong pairing to cover for Coffey.Short shifts reduced Coffey's effectiveness since in 30-40 shifts he could be played. Reducing the shifts to 30-40 seconds allows speed to be paired with even the basic stay at home type while producing net positive results. Today an example would be PK Subban,. Speed plus some offensive talent.Play him with Hal Gill for 30-40 seconds during 5 on 5 situations and you get some net positive results. But the skills to sustain any pressure consistantly are not there.

Ray Bourque showed that the short shift game could be all inclusive for defensemen. No skills or attributes had to be sacrificed at any time. He played the game just as well before the short shift era and after easily shifting from one aspect of his game to another.

Claiming that Harvey played a conservative style is not accurate. Harvey played a style that placed greater demands on the forwards.
Lidstrom playing a distinct style, Style is rather commonplace today - Leetch Numminen, Zubov, down to Tomas Kaberle all were "cerebral" dmen whose value was defined by their ability to stay on the ice and simply perform. Some brought a higher amount of creativity - Leetch but basically it was a question of repeating execution. Lidstrom was by far the best but he was not unique.

All of this to show that Lidstrom is not unique? Come on. You didn't really show how Bourque was unique either. To me Lidstrom is unique because he's a defense first dman who actually uses positioning and skill to defend. He out skills opposing forwards and smothers them, which must be extremely frustrating to play against if you're a skilled forward.

The other point about Lidstrom is that during his prime years he was essentially "perfect". Most superstar players are flashy and can dominate the game. Well, Lidstrom never stood out like that as much but in a team game like hockey, having a player who never makes a mistake and always makes the right play and rarely takes penalties why playing this non-physical dominating game is impossible to put a value on.

Obviously the players who played the game earlier changed the game more than guys of today. If you want to weigh this as being more important than Lidstrom playing against a much deeper talent pool due to increased population and the growth of hockey than that's your opinion. Personally, I think you're grasping at straws if you bring this up as a major argument.

To me, it's a greater feat to win 7 Norris' and dominate for as long as Lidstrom has in this environment than what Harvey accomplished in his great career. There are just so many more people trying to knock Lidstrom from the top than there was back in Harvey's time. All he really had to contend with were 21,000,000 or so other Canadians.

 

[danincanada]

Maybe Lidstrom does get an edge in PO success but it's so slight IMO that it holds very little weight overall.
Bourque dealing with a cheapskate owner in Boston all those years toiling on teams that don't hold a candle to even Detroit's weakest team that Lidstrom played on come pretty close to canceling each other out at the end of the day IMO.

I would weigh playoff performance more than anything else because it's a grind of competitive hockey that separates the men from the boys and that's where Lidstrom has his biggest advantage over Bourque. Then we see that it's 7 Norris' vs. 5 in regular season play and I don't see why this is even a debate.

Bringing Wayne, Mario or Orr into any comparison is always an inherently unfair and ridiculous thing to do.
Of course Jagr doesn't win as many scoring titles vs Wayne or Mario in their primes, NO ONE does though heh.
None of Bourque, Lidstrom or Chelios win a damned thing if they are up against Orr in his prime either.

I would love to see Orr try to skate freely around Lidstrom like he did with the players of his era. I just don't see it happening and IMO it would be impossible for Orr to dominate today like he did back then. Just too many other great skaters and players. I'm sure he'd still be a great player but let's not pretend the NHL has been static since he played.

I also have an inherent bias...I have always had nothing but absolute hate for the Bruins, their players and their fans almost the entirety of my hockey watching life. Add on top of this that Yzerman was one of my favourite players growing up and the Wing's my second favourite team.
Yet I still have no problem picking Bourque over Lidstrom at the end of the day.

Yzerman and Bourque are both Canadian. Lidstrom is Swedish. From viewing your posts I think it's as simple as that and your patriotic bias is stronger than anything else.

 

[danincanada]

Lidstrom is certainly still behind Bourque and Harvey. I assume it is just implied no one overtakes Orr right?

For starters Harvey controlled the pace of the game like few in NHL history. With all due respect for Lidstrom, I don't think he has ever done it quite like that.

You must look at the pace of the games Harvey "controlled" when compared to todays game. It's not really close.

Then consider that Lidstrom has been the QB and #1 defenseman on arguably the greatest puck possession team other than maybe the great Soviet teams. He is great at controlling the pace of the game as well.

As for Bourque, the guy was an all-star 19 times. Lidstrom 12 times. I think it just goes to show you the crazy longevity Bourque has which we tend to forget sometimes (I think we kind of got jaded by him after a while). It would be really hard for me to agree with a good argument that Lidstrom had the better career. I don't know anyone who saw both play that would put Lidstrom ahead of him. But is being the 4-5th best of all-time a crime? I don't think so.

Longevity? Lidstrom is going to enter his 20th season in October and it would be 21 if not for the lockout while Bourque played 22. To me that's a wash.

All-Star nominations are nice but not as nice as more Norris', more Cups and a Conn Smythe and Lidstrom's playoff resume speaks for itself.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your Bogus Arguments

All of this to show that Lidstrom is not unique? Come on. You didn't really show how Bourque was unique either. To me Lidstrom is unique because he's a defense first dman who actually uses positioning and skill to defend. He out skills opposing forwards and smothers them, which must be extremely frustrating to play against if you're a skilled forward.

The other point about Lidstrom is that during his prime years he was essentially "perfect". Most superstar players are flashy and can dominate the game. Well, Lidstrom never stood out like that as much but in a team game like hockey, having a player who never makes a mistake and always makes the right play and rarely takes penalties why playing this non-physical dominating game is impossible to put a value on.

Obviously the players who played the game earlier changed the game more than guys of today. If you want to weigh this as being more important than Lidstrom playing against a much deeper talent pool due to increased population and the growth of hockey than that's your opinion. Personally, I think you're grasping at straws if you bring this up as a major argument.

To me, it's a greater feat to win 7 Norris' and dominate for as long as Lidstrom has in this environment than what Harvey accomplished in his great career. There are just so many more people trying to knock Lidstrom from the top than there was back in Harvey's time. All he really had to contend with were 21,000,000 or so other Canadians.

The bogus and unsupported population pool argument twined with the equally silly size of the NHL position.

Evidenced by the following. Doug Harvey won 7 Norris Trophies during an 8 season stretch between the age of 30 and 37. Nicklas Lidstrom between the ages of 30 and 37 won 6 Norris Trophies in 7 seasons, one season being the lockout season.

During Harvey's stretch the 32 available AST positions were were filled by 11 different dmen (9 HHOFers/2 non, the last season 1961-62). During Lidstrom's stretch the 28 available AST were filled by 16 different dmen (9 HHOFers or consensus / 7 non or consensus). So in terms of actual competition from HHOF quality dmen the population or league size argument does not hold while it was also easier 25% to 6.7% for non-HHOF dmen to make the AST during Lidstrom's stretch. So regardless of country of origin, population size worldwide or the size of the league Doug Harvey clearly surpassed Nicklas Lidstrom when it came down to the questions of competition amongst contemporary dman peers.

Now you raise another of your comic book hero fantasy positions. Bobby Orr playing against the super hero Nicklas Lidstrom. Well Bobby Orr did play against finesse dmen - J.C. Tremblay and dominated the confrontations with J.C. Tremblay doing his best "deer in the headlights imitation" every time Bobby Orr came down his side.

BTW Bobby Orr did play against Doug Harvey, 6 regular season games during the 1968-69 season.Small sample space but revealing. Bruins with Bobby Orr and other greats against a second year expansion St.Louis Blues team with a 43-44 year old Doug Harvey on defense. Split the the six games 2-2-2.

First game in the Boston Garden:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19680031

Notice who set-up started the two late Blues goals that produced the 2 - 1, win - Doug Harvey. Overall, 6 game offensive totals, Bobby Orr (1G/4A), Doug Harvey (0G/3A).

No fantasy required. Doug Harvey was simply a great player and no sophistry or fantasy will make Nicklas Lidstrom better or even close to his level.

 

[danincanada]

The bogus and unsupported population pool argument twined with the equally silly size of the NHL position.

Evidenced by the following. Doug Harvey won 7 Norris Trophies during an 8 season stretch between the age of 30 and 37. Nicklas Lidstrom between the ages of 30 and 37 won 6 Norris Trophies in 7 seasons, one season being the lockout season.

During Harvey's stretch the 32 available AST positions were were filled by 11 different dmen (9 HHOFers/2 non, the last season 1961-62). During Lidstrom's stretch the 28 available AST were filled by 16 different dmen (9 HHOFers or consensus / 7 non or consensus). So in terms of actual competition from HHOF quality dmen the population or league size argument does not hold while it was also easier 25% to 6.7% for non-HHOF dmen to make the AST during Lidstrom's stretch. So regardless of country of origin, population size worldwide or the size of the league Doug Harvey clearly surpassed Nicklas Lidstrom when it came down to the questions of competition amongst contemporary dman peers.

Now you raise another of your comic book hero fantasy positions. Bobby Orr playing against the super hero Nicklas Lidstrom. Well Bobby Orr did play against finesse dmen - J.C. Tremblay and dominated the confrontations with J.C. Tremblay doing his best "deer in the headlights imitation" every time Bobby Orr came down his side.

BTW Bobby Orr did play against Doug Harvey, 6 regular season games during the 1968-69 season.Small sample space but revealing. Bruins with Bobby Orr and other greats against a second year expansion St.Louis Blues team with a 43-44 year old Doug Harvey on defense. Split the the six games 2-2-2.

First game in the Boston Garden:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?H19680031

Notice who set-up started the two late Blues goals that produced the 2 - 1, win - Doug Harvey. Overall, 6 game offensive totals, Bobby Orr (1G/4A), Doug Harvey (0G/3A).

No fantasy required. Doug Harvey was simply a great player and no sophistry or fantasy will make Nicklas Lidstrom better or even close to his level.

Well, you're obviously just going to continue to ignore the obvious. Being able to draft, develop and bring players from all over the world to play in the NHL definitely increases the competition level across the league. Looking at it the way you are with AST is nonesense in comparison IMO.

Let's remove all the Europeans and Americans from the NHL today so we're only left with Canadians. Then let's bring it back to a 6 team league. Is the competition level for the Norris greater or less than how the NHL is made up now? Remember, no Lidstrom or Chara as well as several other of the worlds current top dmen in this great new Canadian league. Are you seriously trying to argue against this?

As for the rest...Lidstrom and Harvey both won 7 Norris', multiple cups, etc. To state that Lidstrom isn't even close really displays your bias in this debate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Usual..........

Well, you're obviously just going to continue to ignore the obvious. Being able to draft, develop and bring players from all over the world to play in the NHL definitely increases the competition level across the league. Looking at it the way you are with AST is nonesense in comparison IMO.

Let's remove all the Europeans and Americans from the NHL today so we're only left with Canadians. Then let's bring it back to a 6 team league. Is the competition level for the Norris greater or less than how the NHL is made up now? Remember, no Lidstrom or Chara as well as several other of the worlds current top dmen in this great new Canadian league. Are you seriously trying to argue against this?

As for the rest...Lidstrom and Harvey both won 7 Norris', multiple cups, etc. To state that Lidstrom isn't even close really displays your bias in this debate.

Remove your hypotheticals, qualifiers and fantasy type positions and you are left with nothing of substance.

 

[danincanada]

Remove your hypotheticals, qualifiers and fantasy type positions and you are left with nothing of substance.

Remove your long tangents and BS and you are left with nothing of substance either.

I see that you are going to ignore this main point I've made. Of course you will because if you concede to the obvious increase in people playing hockey now then your whole argument is gone.

 

[Gobias Industries]

I would weigh playoff performance more than anything else because it's a grind of competitive hockey that separates the men from the boys and that's where Lidstrom has his biggest advantage over Bourque. Then we see that it's 7 Norris' vs. 5 in regular season play and I don't see why this is even a debate.

13 First Team All-Star appearances?...6 Second Team All-Star appearances?...

Playoffs have to be asterisked, Bourque never had the good fortune of playing with what would be considered the closest hockey has had to a dynasty since the Oilers...

 

[danincanada]

13 First Team All-Star appearances?...6 Second Team All-Star appearances?...

Playoffs have to be asterisked, Bourque never had the good fortune of playing with what would be considered the closest hockey has had to a dynasty since the Oilers...

What are valued more, Norris Trophies or All-Star appearances?

Let's put an asterisk beside Bourque's lone Cup then too, shall we, cause that Avs team was stacked.

At the end of the day Lidstrom won more than Bourque, both individually and team wise. He also played his whole career with a full compliment of nationalities in the NHL. Bourque didn't compete against Russian defenseman (Fetisov and Kasatonov) for All-Star selections or Norris Trophies for the first half of his career. Maybe Fetisov wins a Norris or two in the early to mid 80s.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

As consistent as Lidstrom has been, I still haven't read anything in this thread that would convince me to rank him higher than Bourque or Harvey.

Especially amusing is the whole international player argument against Bourque, while it was precisely those players that made Lidstrom's Red Wings as good as they were, and helped him (and his playoff resume) look so good by comparison in the process (Fedorov, Larionov, Holmstrom, Kozlov, Fetisov all contributing greatly to the team as early as Lidstrom's 1st Norris season, and up to and including Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc of today).

Sure, Bourque didn't have the best international players to compete against for a long stretch. He didn't have the best ones in the league on his team helping him, either.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Lidstrom is only arguably the 4th best dman of all-time, maybe even 5th or 6th.

1. Orr
2. Harvey
3. Bourque

Then you could argue Potvin, Shore, or possibly even Coffey, who I think is underrated among defenseman.

My biggest problem with Lidstrom is, he's never been a top 3 player in the game. He honestly hasn't been...all these other defenseman were arguably the best or second best overall player in the game multiple times. Also multiple Norris trophies Lidstrom has won have been close calls, and he's always played for a stacked team on top of that.

Personally I have Lidstrom at 4th, but I could see 5th, 6th, even 7th, sooner than I could see a top 3, and certainly not top 2.

 

[Canadiens1958]

People Playing Hockey

Remove your long tangents and BS and you are left with nothing of substance either.

I see that you are going to ignore this main point I've made. Of course you will because if you concede to the obvious increase in people playing hockey now then your whole argument is gone.

People playing hockey arguments based on population are a complete waste of time and energy since they overlook the key elements of resources and expertise in the form of coaching.

After the partition of Czechoslovakia reduced resources and expertise neither the Czechs or Slovaks produced quality hockey players at the same rate as previously.

In North America comparing strictly on population, Quebec has always enjoyed a population edge on the state of Minnesota of ~50%. In the fifties Quebec produced slightly over 20% of the NHl hockey players while Minnesota was < 1%. Quebec had an advantage in facilities, indoor and outdoor rinks plus excellent coaching. Today Minnesota is producing more NHL level hockey players than Quebec yet Minnesota has a smaller population by app. 2.5 million. Why? The answer is simple. Minnesota has almost double the number of indoor rinks when compared to Quebec with most of them being open year round plus Minnesota has more and better coaching due to structured coaching development programs. The majority of Quebec arenas do not have ice from mid April to September and the coaching is very transient until the older elite levels. A few fathers and mothers get coaching certificates and coach their kids teams as long as the kid keeps playing.

So again comparing strictly on population is a bogus argument from the onset with no merit deserving to be ignored. Produce something that looks at resources and coaching that is serious and apply it to your point.

 

[danincanada]

As consistent as Lidstrom has been, I still haven't read anything in this thread that would convince me to rank him higher than Bourque or Harvey.

Especially amusing is the whole international player argument against Bourque, while it was precisely those players that made Lidstrom's Red Wings as good as they were, and helped him (and his playoff resume) look so good by comparison in the process (Fedorov, Larionov, Holmstrom, Kozlov, Fetisov all contributing greatly to the team as early as Lidstrom's 1st Norris season, and up to and including Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc of today).

Sure, Bourque didn't have the best international players to compete against for a long stretch. He didn't have the best ones in the league on his team helping him, either.

You're confusing my argument against Harvey's placing with Bourque. I mentioned that Bourque didn't compete against Russians for the Norris/AST in the first half of his career. That is all.

The Red Wings have had some great teams recently but Lidstrom's teammates didn't win all those Norris' for him.

 

[danincanada]

People playing hockey arguments based on population are a complete waste of time and energy since they overlook the key elements of resources and expertise in the form of coaching.

After the partition of Czechoslovakia reduced resources and expertise neither the Czechs or Slovaks produced quality hockey players at the same rate as previously.

In North America comparing strictly on population, Quebec has always enjoyed a population edge on the state of Minnesota of ~50%. In the fifties Quebec produced slightly over 20% of the NHl hockey players while Minnesota was < 1%. Quebec had an advantage in facilities, indoor and outdoor rinks plus excellent coaching. Today Minnesota is producing more NHL level hockey players than Quebec yet Minnesota has a smaller population by app. 2.5 million. Why? The answer is simple. Minnesota has almost double the number of indoor rinks when compared to Quebec with most of them being open year round plus Minnesota has more and better coaching due to structured coaching development programs. The majority of Quebec arenas do not have ice from mid April to September and the coaching is very transient until the older elite levels. A few fathers and mothers get coaching certificates and coach their kids teams as long as the kid keeps playing.

So again comparing strictly on population is a bogus argument from the onset with no merit deserving to be ignored. Produce something that looks at resources and coaching that is serious and apply it to your point.

My argument is not simply based on population, it's based on what we see in the NHL today which is high end players coming from all over Europe (including Russia), the US and Canada. You want to ignore this to help your argument but this is a large improvement over only gathering hockey talent from Canada.

You are right in that for more people to play and excel at hockey you also require rinks, good coaches and equipment...this is obvious. My point is that now that other countries also have these things the competition to play in the NHL is much greater and the players in the league are generally that much better because the depth of people and talent has increased.

To realize what the NHL would look like with only Canadians now is easy to do. The league would not be as good as it is now and we would be missing a whole bunch of amazing athletes. That is essentially the NHL Doug Harvey played in so it should be factored accordingly. In fact, I'm sure Canada had less rinks and good coaches back in the 50's than now, therefore even Canada should be producing better players now. Canada also has almost 35,000,000 people now as compared to 21,000,000 back during Harvey's prime.

The only waste of time I see is pretending the NHL was in a vacuum since it's infancy and nothing has changed so we can compare the best from the 30's and act as if the competition they faced was the same as today. It simply wasn't !

 

[CarlWinslow]

Well, you're obviously just going to continue to ignore the obvious. Being able to draft, develop and bring players from all over the world to play in the NHL definitely increases the competition level across the league. Looking at it the way you are with AST is nonesense in comparison IMO.

Let's remove all the Europeans and Americans from the NHL today so we're only left with Canadians. Then let's bring it back to a 6 team league. Is the competition level for the Norris greater or less than how the NHL is made up now? Remember, no Lidstrom or Chara as well as several other of the worlds current top dmen in this great new Canadian league. Are you seriously trying to argue against this?

As for the rest...Lidstrom and Harvey both won 7 Norris', multiple cups, etc. To state that Lidstrom isn't even close really displays your bias in this debate.

Doug Harvey played in a league with less filler and more high end talent as the other guy pointed out. Since we are talking about Norris trophies, the high end talent is what matters, not the fact that there are more marginally talented players filling out the glutton of jobs available now.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Doug Harvey played in a league with less filler and more high end talent as the other guy pointed out. Since we are talking about Norris trophies, the high end talent is what matters, not the fact that there are more marginally talented players filling out the glutton of jobs available now.

Exactly. There are only 3 "finalists" for the Norris each year, and all that matters is who they are and how you stack up against THEM.

You're confusing my argument against Harvey's placing with Bourque. I mentioned that Bourque didn't compete against Russians for the Norris/AST in the first half of his career. That is all.

The Red Wings have had some great teams recently but Lidstrom's teammates didn't win all those Norris' for him.

Not in any absolute terms, but they certainly contributed more towards them than Bourque's teammates did towards his. As has already been said, Lidstrom has been winning Norrises and Cups "recently" while Datsyuk and Zetterberg have been figuring into Hart, Selke, and Conn Smythe conversations year after year. Bourque was winning Norrises without the luxury of such high end support. That's not why I "easily" rank Bourque ahead of Lidstrom (I simply think Bourque was clearly the better player between the two), but it's certainly a contributing factor.

 

[danincanada]

Doug Harvey played in a league with less filler and more high end talent as the other guy pointed out. Since we are talking about Norris trophies, the high end talent is what matters, not the fact that there are more marginally talented players filling out the glutton of jobs available now.

So let me get this straight...

If we remove the non-Canadians from the NHL now, then arbitrarily remove 40% of those Canadians (to make it an equivalent talent pool to 21,000,000 Canadians) and bring the league back to 6 teams we would have more high end talent? Or would we have equal high end talent? Everyone should know the answer to this using their own logic.

Chara, Lidstrom and the other great non-Canadian defenseman would not be around and Weber would win the Norris with say, Boyle and Letang as the other finalists. Is this high end talent in this revised NHL better or worse than todays reality? I'm sure Harvey was a great athlete and defenseman but to say he had tougher competition is truly absurd.

I'm sorry for using these hypothetical/fantasy examples but it's the only way for you guys to see and admit the obvious.