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

[Reds4Life]

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.

That's just a load of horsecrap.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

If the same 5-3-1 point system was used for voting like it was during almost the entirety of Bourque's career, Weber would have won the Norris this year instead of Lidstrom. Just sayin'. Also, I don't think history will look back on this year and point to Visnovsky's vote totals as proof that he is a higher calibre of defenseman than say, Keith, Suter, Doughty, Seabrook, Pronger, Bieksa, etc.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

Then by all means weigh their actual performances, not their team performances. Lidstrom, despite playing almost 50 more PO games than Bourque, just passed him in PO points mere weeks ago.
And for the love of god do not try and bring adjusted Stats into PO scoring. AS's are horribly inaccurate when used on PO scoring. They use a regular season matrix and I have yet to see it re-adjusted for what playoff scoring was.
Then, at the end of the day you can compare the strength of their respective teams year to year and decide how much weight should or shouldn't be assigned.

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.

Yeah, I know, Lemieux wouldn't score 60 or more every season and Gretzky wouldn't be able to average 100 assists or more a season today....bla bla bla.
That is your opinion, it certainly isn't mine and both mean nothing here as far as the facts go.
Saying that Orr wouldn't dominate as much as he did in the 70's is prolly a fair statement, but he would still dominate.
Maybe the gap between him and other d-men shrinks a bit but the gap would still be a sizable one.

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.

Right, right, that's why I have Hasek slotted into the #1 hole for goaltenders (regular season and overall anyway), while consistently ranking players like Salming, Fetisov, Jagr and Kurri higher than most around here.
Believe me dude, my bias against anything Boston far out weighs any patriotism heh
Hell, there's a pretty good chance that if Bourque wasn't a Bruin, I might even have him ranked #2 ahead of Harvey. Who knows, at least I'm being honest.

 

[danincanada]

If the same 5-3-1 point system was used for voting like it was during almost the entirety of Bourque's career, Weber would have won the Norris this year instead of Lidstrom. Just sayin'.

...and would Weber's high end competition for the Norris be just as strong in this scenerio I came up with? Obviously not.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

...and would Weber's high end competition for the Norris be just as strong in this scenerio I came up with? Obviously not.

Looking at the names I listed in my edit? Yeah, there are at least 6 other guys that provide as much/more competition year in, year out than everyone not named Lidstrom or Chara.

 

[danincanada]

Then by all means weigh their actual performances, not their team performances. Lidstrom, despite playing almost 50 more PO games than Bourque, just passed him in PO points mere weeks ago.
And for the love of god do not try and bring adjusted Stats into PO scoring. AS's are horribly inaccurate when used on PO scoring. They use a regular season matrix and I have yet to see it re-adjusted for what playoff scoring was.

I didn't and haven't brough up adjusted stats but we all know the 80's and early 90's were the most potent era in terms of offense. Bringing up any players offensive numbers from then and comparing it to a player from today isn't a fair scale.

Yeah, I know, Lemieux wouldn't score 60 or more every season and Gretzky wouldn't be able to average 100 assists or more a season today....bla bla bla.
That is your opinion, it certainly isn't mine and both mean nothing here as far as the facts go.
Saying that Orr wouldn't dominate as much as he did in the 70's is prolly a fair statement, but he would still dominate.
Maybe the gap between him and other d-men shrinks a bit but the gap would still be a sizable one.

I didn't state any of your first points. The last part is only your opinion. You have absolutely no idea how Orr would do in today's NHL and neither do I. The league and game has changed so much since then.

 

[danincanada]

Looking at the names I listed in my edit? Yeah, there are at least 6 other guys that provide as much/more competition year in, year out than everyone not named Lidstrom or Chara.

My point stands. The competition for the Norris is much stronger with the non-Canadians involved. There is no point in arguing this.

Prior to the growth of hockey in other nations there wasn't even a possibility of non-Canadians being in the picture. Obviously with them in the picture it means more competition. It's very simple.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

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.

All it means is that the history of hockey repeats itself.

Where your conjectures or fantasy examples fall apart is that they fail to explain the succession factor that is evident in Canada but lacking elsewhere.

Basically in Canada you can flat line link from Harvey Pulford(1890's) to today with the odd upward spike. Europe's contribution by country does not have such a flat line continium. Sweden you have Salming then a near 12 year drop until Lidstrom's peak started with little post Lidstrom. Russia post Fetisov, nothing of note to date or coming. Czechs and Slovaks - Chara is basically an island. Plus if you look at Chara and Lidstrom their formative training was during the pre European NHL years in their birth country.

Discuss sustainable development and see how your points and analogies hold-up.Historically Canada has sustainable development with the USA catching up since the 1960's produced a hockey growth spurt in the USA.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I didn't and haven't brough up adjusted stats but we all know the 80's and early 90's were the most potent era in terms of offense. Bringing up any players offensive numbers from then and comparing it to a player from today isn't a fair scale.

You're right, you haven't brought them up and I shouldn't of jumped the gun on that, apologies.
However, the potency of playoff scoring from the 80's and 90's is not as inflated compared to today as regular season scoring is.

I didn't state any of your first points. The last part is only your opinion. You have absolutely no idea how Orr would do in today's NHL and neither do I. The league and game has changed so much since then.

That was my point, both of us are spouting our opinions on that particular point. I even said that neither actually means jack
Agree or disagree, doesn't mean either of us are right or wrong.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

My point stands. The competition for the Norris is much stronger with the non-Canadians involved. There is no point in arguing this.

The competition for the Norris is not "much" stronger at all, especially not among the actual perennial Norris candidates. Lidstrom and Chara are the only international players that figure into voting year after year, and they still only beat out the North American candidates by slim margins. That's two guys that are artificially inflating your perception of the international contribution at the high end when it comes to defense (feel free to add Gonchar or Zubov, if you believe he's high enough calibre to "balance the equation"). If we were discussing the forward position, I'd glady concede your assertion.

North American defenders occupied 6 out of the top 10 spots in all-star voting this year. 8 of 10 last year. 6 of 10 (add Markov and Streit to Lidstrom/Chara) the year before that. 6 out of 10 before that (Markov and Gonchar). If you look at the names that round out the voting past those spots (11 to roughly 20), it's almost 90% North American. So yes, there is some extra competition on the whole, but not a lot at the top, and only 2 international players that actually challenge for the TOP spot. And still, Lidstrom is winning Norrises by slim margins while Bourque was winning them by 40-90% over the next best guy. Winning is important, but dominance is defining.

 

[danincanada]

All it means is that the history of hockey repeats itself.

Where your conjectures or fantasy examples fall apart is that they fail to explain the succession factor that is evident in Canada but lacking elsewhere.

Basically in Canada you can flat line link from Harvey Pulford(1890's) to today with the odd upward spike. Europe's contribution by country does not have such a flat line continium. Sweden you have Salming then a near 12 year drop until Lidstrom's peak started with little post Lidstrom. Russia post Fetisov, nothing of note to date or coming. Czechs and Slovaks - Chara is basically an island. Plus if you look at Chara and Lidstrom their formative training was during the pre European NHL years in their birth country.

Discuss sustainable development and see how your points and analogies hold-up.Historically Canada has sustainable development with the USA catching up since the 1960's produced a hockey growth spurt in the USA.

Well, things have obviously changed and today we see NHL teams draft players high end players from all over Europe (even Danes, Swiss, Germans, etc.) so you'd better get used to them coming over and challenging Canadians for the current top spots and all-time top spots. As long as hockey continues to grow in those countries we are going to see more of this. I think it's great for the sport.

Closing your ears and pretending only Canadians can have those spots isn't going to work in the long run. If this is the resistance you have to placing Lidstrom up there then it's going to be real frustrating for you if some prodigy comes out of Europe and makes Crosby just look like another great player.

It's not just fantasy land either...a European had never won the Norris or captained a Cup winner until Lidstrom so we know it's not impossible. It's interesting that such a quiet and unassuming guy like Lidstrom who plays an even more suble game was the one who knocked down these walls.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, things have obviously changed and today we see NHL teams draft players high end players from all over Europe (even Danes, Swiss, Germans, etc.) so you'd better get used to them coming over and challenging Canadians for the current top spots and all-time top spots. As long as hockey continues to grow in those countries we are going to see more of this. I think it's great for the sport.

Closing your ears and pretending only Canadians can have those spots isn't going to work in the long run. If this is the resistance you have to placing Lidstrom up there then it's going to be real frustrating for you if some prodigy comes out of Europe and makes Crosby just look like another great player.

It's not just fantasy land either...a European had never won the Norris or captained a Cup winner until Lidstrom so we know it's not impossible. It's interesting that such a quiet and unassuming guy like Lidstrom who plays an even more suble game was the one who knocked down these walls.

Where did you even find such an insinuation in his post(s)?

 

[danincanada]

The competition for the Norris is not "much" stronger at all, especially not among the actual perennial Norris candidates. Lidstrom and Chara are the only international players that figure into voting year after year, and they still only beat out the North American candidates by slim margins. That's two guys that are artificially inflating your perception of the international contribution at the high end when it comes to defense (feel free to add Gonchar or Zubov, if you believe he's high enough calibre to "balance the equation"). If we were discussing the forward position, I'd glady concede your assertion.

North American defenders occupied 6 out of the top 10 spots in all-star voting this year. 8 of 10 last year. 6 of 10 (add Markov and Streit to Lidstrom/Chara) the year before that. 6 out of 10 before that (Markov and Gonchar). If you look at the names that round out the voting past those spots (11 to roughly 20), it's almost 90% North American. So yes, there is some extra competition on the whole, but not a lot at the top, and only 2 international players that actually challenge for the TOP spot. And still, Lidstrom is winning Norrises by slim margins while Bourque was winning them by 40-90% over the next best guy. Winning is important, but dominance is defining.

You are in complete denial. European defenseman have won 5 of the last 6 Norris'. Remove Lidstrom and Chara alone and not only is the field much weaker but someone else wins and they get much more praise than they get now.

If there was no Lidstrom then Pronger would probably have won a bunch of Norris' and be in this conversation with Harvey and Bourque. It's not that Pronger was actually any better than he is, he just didn't have Lidstrom beating him year after year.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You are in complete denial. European defenseman have won 5 of the last 6 Norris'. Remove Lidstrom and Chara alone and not only is the field much weaker but someone else wins and they get much more praise than they get now.

If there was no Lidstrom then Pronger would probably have won a bunch of Norris' and be in this conversation with Harvey and Bourque. It's not that Pronger was actually any better than he is, he just didn't have Lidstrom beating him year after year.

Those same two guys won each and every one of them. The only denial here stems from your projection of those two players over the entire spectrum of international contribution/competition at the defense position.

 

[danincanada]

Those same two guys won each and every one of them. The only denial here stems from your projection of those two players over the entire spectrum of international contribution/competition at the defense position.

I'm pointing out how much more competitive it is with the possibility of European and American players vying for the same trophies that only Canadians won in the past. More people being involved in trying to win a Norris = more competition.

Lidstrom had more competition than Shore, Harvey and Orr. As we go back in time towards the infancy of hockey the competition gets weaker due to less people and nations playing hockey. I don't see an argument for the opposite and if you are going to rank the all-time players you really should factor this in somehow. Or, maybe just avoid comparing players from different eras because there is nothing scientific about it. Patriotism, nostalgia and team fan biases seem to take the place of logic and reason.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well, things have obviously changed and today we see NHL teams draft players high end players from all over Europe (even Danes, Swiss, Germans, etc.) so you'd better get used to them coming over and challenging Canadians for the current top spots and all-time top spots. As long as hockey continues to grow in those countries we are going to see more of this. I think it's great for the sport.

Closing your ears and pretending only Canadians can have those spots isn't going to work in the long run. If this is the resistance you have to placing Lidstrom up there then it's going to be real frustrating for you if some prodigy comes out of Europe and makes Crosby just look like another great player.

It's not just fantasy land either...a European had never won the Norris or captained a Cup winner until Lidstrom so we know it's not impossible. It's interesting that such a quiet and unassuming guy like Lidstrom who plays an even more suble game was the one who knocked down these walls.

Easy there, Lidstrom may have finished the wall off and cleared the rubble but he certainly wasn't the one that did most of the knocking down. That was without a doubt a guy named Salming, mostly with his face

Citing North American bias in an attempt to raise Lidstrom's pedestal a little higher is one thing. There is at least some basis for such an argument but I will not abide any attempt to raise his pedestal further by giving him credit for what Salming did.
Keep it real my friend.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I'm pointing out how much more competitive it is with the possibility of European and American players vying for the same trophies that only Canadians won in the past. More people being involved in trying to win a Norris = more competition.

Lidstrom had more competition than Shore, Harvey and Orr. As we go back in time towards the infancy of hockey the competition gets weaker due to less people and nations playing hockey. I don't see an argument for the opposite and if you are going to rank the all-time players you really should factor this in somehow. Or, maybe just avoid comparing players from different eras because there is nothing scientific about it. Patriotism, nostalgia and team fan biases seem to take the place of logic and reason.

And yet, you still haven't convinced anyone that more competition = better competition, especially in the context of competition between those at the very top who are competing for the award(s) that we're comparing. Absolutely, 6 man defensive units are collectively stronger nowadays thanks to the larger pool to collect from and advancements in training and development. I still laugh at any attempt to suggest that it was harder for Lidstrom to win his Norris trophies than Bourque. And that's coming from a Habs fan who grew up with Detroit as his second favourite team.

And please don't separate Americans from North Americans when replying to my posts. I have obviously been clear to distinguish the two "pools" as European and North American, and for good reason.

 

[danincanada]

Easy there, Lidstrom may have finished the wall off and cleared the rubble but he certainly wasn't the one that did most of the knocking down. That was without a doubt a guy named Salming, mostly with his face

Citing North American bias in an attempt to raise Lidstrom's pedestal a little higher is one thing. There is at least some basis for such an argument but I will not abide any attempt to raise his pedestal further by giving him credit for what Salming did.
Keep it real my friend.

I grew up in Toronto so I know what Salming went through. Lidstrom was the first to convince people a European could win the Norris, Conn Smythe and capatain a team to a Cup. Salming did none of these and that was my point.

 

[Epsilon]

The competition for the Norris is not "much" stronger at all, especially not among the actual perennial Norris candidates. Lidstrom and Chara are the only international players that figure into voting year after year, and they still only beat out the North American candidates by slim margins. That's two guys that are artificially inflating your perception of the international contribution at the high end when it comes to defense (feel free to add Gonchar or Zubov, if you believe he's high enough calibre to "balance the equation"). If we were discussing the forward position, I'd glady concede your assertion.

North American defenders occupied 6 out of the top 10 spots in all-star voting this year. 8 of 10 last year. 6 of 10 (add Markov and Streit to Lidstrom/Chara) the year before that. 6 out of 10 before that (Markov and Gonchar). If you look at the names that round out the voting past those spots (11 to roughly 20), it's almost 90% North American. So yes, there is some extra competition on the whole, but not a lot at the top, and only 2 international players that actually challenge for the TOP spot. And still, Lidstrom is winning Norrises by slim margins while Bourque was winning them by 40-90% over the next best guy. Winning is important, but dominance is defining.

Bourque has 3 blowout wins (87, 88, and 90) and 2 close ones (91 and 94). Lidstrom has 3 blowout wins (01, 06, and 08), 2 solid wins (03 and 07) and 2 close wins (02 and 11). Your claim is pretty laughable under scrutiny.

 

[danincanada]

And yet, you still haven't convinced anyone that more competition = better competition, especially in the context of competition between those at the very top who are competing for the award(s) that we're comparing. Absolutely, 6 man defensive units are collectively stronger nowadays thanks to the larger pool to collect from and advancements in training and development. I still laugh at any attempt to suggest that it was harder for Lidstrom to win his Norris trophies than Bourque. And that's coming from a Habs fan who grew up with Detroit as his second favourite team.

And please don't separate Americans from North Americans when replying to my posts. I have obviously been clear to distinguish the two "pools" as European and North American, and for good reason.

I doubt I will convince those who oppose this view because there is a lot of denial of the obvious going on here.

For the bolded part I assume you are referring to the competition Bourque faced in his "deep" Norris classes of the late 80's and early 90's. Well, when it was at it's deepest with a prime Chelios, Leetch, MacInnis, etc. Lidstrom was there too and that deep class of defenseman took early votes away from him also but people seem to want to avoid that part of it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What I did say is that Bourque didn't have to face a prime Fetisov for the Norris and that is the truth.

The American hockey program has grown a lot over the years which is why I referred to the Americans. There were 6 US born players in the NHL in 68-69 out of 314 (0.02%) and it grew to 218 out of 961 in 08-09 (22.7%). That is why I separated Americans from North American. The US and Europe have helped make this tranformation happen.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/page.htm?id=58944

 

[Rhiessan71]

I grew up in Toronto so I know what Salming went through. Lidstrom was the first to convince people a European could win the Norris, Conn Smythe and capatain a team to a Cup. Salming did none of these and that was my point.

Ummmm....you may want to take a better look Norris voting tallies.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=517353
Borje Salming - 5th(1974), 4th(1975), 3rd(1976), 2nd(1977), 4th(1978), 3rd(1979), 2nd(1980), 10th(1981)

Salming convinced people that a European was capable of winning the Norris when Lidstrom was still having his skates tied up by his father.
C'mon dude, credit where credit is due.
Salming was up against Orr, Robinson and Potvin and held his own.
Lidstrom was up against Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara....not much difference there right

Hell, a very strong argument could and has been made that Salming actually deserved the '80 Norris over Robinson. His play on a pretty weak Leaf team was more impressive than Robinson's play on still fairly stacked Habs team that year.

 

[JazzRockford]

My biggest problem with Lidstrom is, he's never been a top 3 player in the game.

Really? Maybe people weren't saying it back then, but, in retrospect, can you really say that Lidström is not a top 3 player in 2002 and 2003 at least? I don't see anybody that compares favourably to him. Jagr? Those were down years for him. Näslund? His offense was far from as dominant as Lidström's defense (not to mention the gap in playoff performance). Forsberg? On a per game-basis he's got a case. Sakic? No. Brodeur? Probably not.

At that time, Lidström is at worst third and likely first.

People use the strong team-argument a lot to discredit Lidström and obviously it needs to be taken into account. However, when it comes to Hart voting and the title as best player it has really been a disadvantaged for him. Had he played for a team like the 1990 Bruins he might have been seen as the best player a lot more.

Heck, didn't Shanahan get more Hart votes than Nick one year?

A case can be made that Lidström was a top 3 player in 2001 and 2006 as well.

Also multiple Norris trophies Lidstrom has won have been close calls, and he's always played for a stacked team on top of that.

1. I'm pretty sure Lidström has won most of his Norris trophies in quite a dominating fashion. Didn't he get 70-80 % of the Norris shares a couple of years? This year is certainly an exception.

2. Yeah. Team strenght is an important variable. It's one of the reasons why I personally rank Bourque higher than Lidström. This being said: Nicklas is maybe the biggest reason those Detroit teams have been so strong. When you don't have a great goalie you need a great defense. Having the best d-man in the world helps. It helps a lot.

It's no coincidence Detroit could continue their success post-lockout.

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.

I agree with a bunch of other guys: Bourque, Shore, Lidström and Harvey can be ranked pretty much in any way, depending on which criteria you value the most and what your views are about the different eras.

But I really can't see how anybody can rank Nicklas below Potvin or Robinson.

 

[danincanada]

Ummmm....you may want to take a better look Norris voting tallies.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=517353
Borje Salming - 5th(1974), 4th(1975), 3rd(1976), 2nd(1977), 4th(1978), 3rd(1979), 2nd(1980), 10th(1981)

Salming convinced people that a European was capable of winning the Norris when Lidstrom was still having his skates tied up by his father.
C'mon dude, credit where credit is due.

Salming convinced people he could win a Norris from being nominated or getting votes? No, he didn't win so he didn't convince anyone. Getting close and actually getting enough votes to win are two different things.

Even in '98 when Lidstrom should have won there was lots of resistence. He was still seen as a soft offensive Euro by some when that should have been completely discounted by then because he shut down Lindros in the finals in the prior year.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

How about actual elite level play by the defenseman himself? Of which trophies and all star teams are both a measurement.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Bourque has 3 blowout wins (87, 88, and 90) and 2 close ones (91 and 94). Lidstrom has 3 blowout wins (01, 06, and 08), 2 solid wins (03 and 07) and 2 close wins (02 and 11). Your claim is pretty laughable under scrutiny.

That's kinda true, I guess, depending on semantics regarding "blowout". Lidstrom's big win was against Bourque in the final year of his career, getting 56% more votes. He then edged out a 40 year old Chelios by 7% the next year. Then a 39 year old MacInnis by 12% the next year. Beating Niedermayer (only 32 at the time) by 26% was significant, but beating him by only 13% in '07 wasn't that "impressive", but it might have been one of Niedermayer's best seasons, so that's significant I guess. Beating Phaneuf by 56% was impressive... except that Phaneuf was his closest competition.

Bourque, on the other hand (and on top of finishing no lower than 4th in Norris voting shares every year of his career up to 1997, including his rookie year), beat a 31 year old Mark Howe by 48%, Scott Stevens in his absolute prime by 38%, Al MacInnis in the second best year of his career by 60% (Bourque's 100% year) - only beat MacInnis by 8% the next year, but that was also MacInnis' career year - on top of his edging of Stevens in '94.

I don't know... one of those lists looks a lot more impressive than the other, both in terms of who each guy beat, when it was, AND by how much. How's that for "scrutiny"?