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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think many people consider Scott Stevens to gave been in his absolute prime in 1988

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

Dude, when you get only 11% fewer votes than Robinson after the '76-77 season the Habs had, you've convinced enough people that you're capable of winning it in any "average" year.

I don't think many people consider Scott Stevens to gave been in his absolute prime in 1988

Really? After earning Norris votes in '85, '85, and '87, how could finishing 2nd to Bourque in Norris voting in '88 NOT be clearly indicative of him being in his prime? Is this simply a semantic disconnect between "middle"/"peak"/"absolute"?

 

[Epsilon]

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"?

The problem is you aren't comparing them the right way, because the different voting systems make those percentages apples and oranges. The right measure is using Hockey Outsider's Norris trophy shares statistic.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The problem is you aren't comparing them the right way, because the different voting systems make those percentages apples and oranges. The right measure is using Hockey Outsider's Norris trophy shares statistic.

I have it open in another tab, and it's precisely what I'm using, actually. Flip to page 11 post #214 of the award voting sticky, and you'll be able to confirm that I am using vote shares, assuming that table isn't a points % instead.

 

[Gobias Industries]

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.

I'd take Bourque's All-Star Team nods (19 seasons of a top-4 defence, 13 of top 2) vs. Lidstrom's Norris' personally...

 

[Reds4Life]

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"?

So what? Overlooking the fact that you compare apples to oranges (different voting systems)..your post still makes no sense.

Don't you look at domination over peers to determine player's greatness? Sure. But Lidstrom is the only all time great that gets "weak competition" ******** spit at him all the time.
Harvey/Bourque etc. never faced better competition, only names that sound legendary today.
Orr dominated laughably weak NHL league and yet he's still unanimously the best ever defenseman.

Lidstrom has been number one defenseman for the best (or close to that) team in the NHL for 15+ years (1995-2011). And he's been the best player on his team for at least 7 of those years.
His team made playoffs every single year and won more Cups than any other team in that time period. In addition to that, he dominated all other defensemen for big majority of that time period.

There is not one single hockey player that comes close to that level of day-to-day consistency and domination (perhaps Brodeur he's a goalie) in that time period.

That's his legacy and you can't ask for more.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't think many people consider Scott Stevens to gave been in his absolute prime in 1988

Really? After earning Norris votes in '85, '85, and '87, how could finishing 2nd to Bourque in Norris voting in '88 NOT be clearly indicative of him being in his prime? Is this simply a semantic disconnect between "middle"/"peak"/"absolute"?

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

You're saying it yourself.
There's a difference between convincing people it's possible and actually winning it.
Salming convinced people to open the door. Lidstrom didn't have to open that door, he just had to step through it. Salming already more than put the possibility in people's heads 25 years earlier.

Like Bourque and the '90 Hart, Salming and the '80 Norris are no different to many people.
I mean we're talking about a Leaf team that year, that underwent no less than 18 personnel changes...seriously.

 

[Epsilon]

I have it open in another tab, and it's precisely what I'm using, actually. Flip to page 11 post #214 of the award voting sticky, and you'll be able to confirm that I am using vote shares, not points based on any 5-3-1 system, or the like.

Regardless, your original statement was still clearly wrong. The fact that you had to do a ton of calculating and rationalizing ("oh, but this player Lidstrom beat wasn't good and this one Bourque beat was") shows that.

 

[danincanada]

I'd take Bourque's All-Star Team nods (19 seasons of a top-4 defence, 13 of top 2) vs. Lidstrom's Norris' personally...

We'll have to agree to disagree then because I'd take Lidstrom's 7 Norris', 1 Conn Smythe and 4 Cups over everything Bourque accomplished...as least by a small margin anyways.

 

[danincanada]

You're saying it yourself.
There's a difference between convincing people it's possible and actually winning it.
Salming convinced people to open the door. Lidstrom didn't have to open that door, he just had to step through it. Salming already more than put the possibility in people's heads 25 years earlier.

Like Bourque and the '90 Hart, Salming and the '80 Norris are no different to many people.

I don't really care man. My main point was that Lidstrom was the first European to accomplish the 3 things I mentioned. Some people didn't believe it would ever happen and the Don Cherry's of the world would point it out before it did happen.

 

[Epsilon]

Lidstrom might be the only player in NHL history who gets penalized by people for playing his entire career on one team (which is normally considered a sign of loyalty/character etc.) and having that team (which he was a major part of) be a very good one the entire time.

 

[Gobias Industries]

There is not one single hockey player that comes close to that level of day-to-day consistency and domination (perhaps Brodeur he's a goalie) in that time period.

That's his legacy and you can't ask for more.

That's Bourque IMO...

Seriously, 19 seasons of top-4 defence...

Read that back, 19 seasons!!!

 

[Gobias Industries]

We'll have to agree to disagree then because I'd take Lidstrom's 7 Norris', 1 Conn Smythe and 4 Cups over everything Bourque accomplished...as least by a small margin anyways.

You understand how All-Star voting works, I'm not talking about some game with Alex Ovechkin wearing sunglasses...

I'm talking about being one of the best four defenceman in the league...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

So what? Overlooking the fact that you compare apples to oranges (different voting systems)..your post still makes no sense.

Don't you look at domination over peers to determine player's greatness? Sure. But Lidstrom is the only all time great that gets "weak competition" ******** spit at him all the time.
Harvey/Bourque etc. never faced better competition, only names that sound legendary today.
Orr dominated laughably weak NHL league and yet he's still unanimously the best ever defenseman.

Yes, dominance is one measure. And when people comment on the weaker competition, it's all relative, and not necessarily suggesting some chasmic divide.

Lidstrom has been number one defenseman for the best (or close to that) team in the NHL for 15+ years (1995-2011). And he's been the best player on his team for at least 7 of those years.

Of course, Bourque was the "best" (or close to it) defenseman in the league for 17 straight years, plus two more years tacked on the end to make 19 total. And he was the best player on his team (I would even say "by far") for the vast majority of them.

His team made playoffs every single year and won more Cups than any other team in that time period. In addition to that, he dominated all other defensemen for big majority of that time period.

Chalk it up to the relative difference in strength between the Bruins teams that Bourque played for and the Red Wings teams that Lidstrom played for.

There is not one single hockey player that comes close to that level of day-to-day consistency and domination (perhaps Brodeur he's a goalie) in that time period.

That's his legacy and you can't ask for more.

Actually, I think Bourque's list of post season all-star nominations pretty conclusively debunks that one.

 

[steve141]

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.

Lidstrom just won a Norris, so it's a bit premature to draw conclusions about the post Lidstrom world I'd say. Sweden has had the highest picked defenceman in the NHL entry draft two out of the last three years. Or are those defencemen are just islands aswell?

Russia post Fetisov, nothing of note to date or coming.

Nothing of note? Konstantinov? Gonchar? Zubov? Are you just trolling at this point?

Czechs and Slovaks - Chara is basically an island.

Lubomir Visnovsky was the highest scoring defenceman this passed year. Kaberle and Hamrlik both played in the all star game during the last decade. Nothing of note or basically islands - you make the pick.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Regardless, your original statement was still clearly wrong. The fact that you had to do a ton of calculating and rationalizing ("oh, but this player Lidstrom beat wasn't good and this one Bourque beat was") shows that.

Actually, according to my math, 60>56>48>38>>26>13>12>8, and those bolded ones are all Bourque. I didn't even have to calculate anything, btw, those numbers are out there for anyone else to reference. And if there's no difference to you between beating perennial Norris candidates and past greats in their prime, and beating past-their-prime greats and one year wonders, then I guess we'll never meet eye to eye as far as "rationalizing" relative levels of competition among the "elites" is concerned.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't really care man. My main point was that Lidstrom was the first European to accomplish the 3 things I mentioned. Some people didn't believe it would ever happen and the Don Cherry's of the world would point it out before it did happen.

Well, Don should be taken for what he is, a sometimes entertaining clown in a high collar.

No doubt, Lidstrom was the first to actually accomplish all 3. You still don't give him credit for or take away from what Salming started and took by far the biggest strides on over 35 years ago.

You can build Lidstrom's pedestal high enough without taking pieces from Salming's in the process.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Really? After earning Norris votes in '85, '85, and '87, how could finishing 2nd to Bourque in Norris voting in '88 NOT be clearly indicative of him being in his prime? Is this simply a semantic disconnect between "middle"/"peak"/"absolute"?

the general impression of Scott Stevens is that he was a big hitter / offensive defenseman who didn't mature defensively until the early 90s. I think most people consider his best years in NJ, when he actually got less Norris consideration because he focused more on defense.

Scott Stevens has a reputation as a Phaneuf-like player in the late 80s (or at least back when Phaneuf was still good).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom might be the only player in NHL history who gets penalized by people for playing his entire career on one team (which is normally considered a sign of loyalty/character etc.) and having that team (which he was a major part of) be a very good one the entire time.

Martin Brodeur absolutely gets punished for the same thing. Of course, his team has been mostly mediocre at best following the last lockout, but that doesn't stop people from crediting his team for his own success.

There is definitely a contingent that thinks a player needs to rack up good personal numbers in a crappy team for us to be sure he really is that good.

 

[Epsilon]

Martin Brodeur absolutely gets punished for the same thing. Of course, his team has been mostly mediocre at best following the last lockout, but that doesn't stop people from crediting his team for his own success.

There is definitely a contingent that thinks a player needs to rack up good personal numbers in a crappy team for us to be sure he really is that good.

Good point on Brodeur, he gets a lot of that as well.

I do find it funny that some of the people in this thread discounting Lidstrom's personal and playoff success due to the strength of the teams he played for are also the ones who constantly pump the tires of complementary players on dynasty teams. Does being a key contributor on a bunch of Stanley Cup championships only count if they were all strung together?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

the general impression of Scott Stevens is that he was a big hitter / offensive defenseman who didn't mature defensively until the early 90s. I think most people consider his best years in NJ, when he actually got less Norris consideration because he focused more on defense.

Scott Stevens has a reputation as a Phaneuf-like player in the late 80s (or at least back when Phaneuf was still good).

I won't argue that if you're restricting your limits to his "peak" (which I would probably agree, was age 27, 28, 29 playing for NJ). But in terms of his abilities, development, performance, and impact (no pun intended) on the ice, it's hard not to consider his runner-up Norris '87 season - his 6th season in the league - as part of his "prime".

 

[Gobias Industries]

Good point on Brodeur, he gets a lot of that as well.

I do find it funny that some of the people in this thread discounting Lidstrom's personal and playoff success due to the strength of the teams he played for are also the ones who constantly pump the tires of complementary players on dynasty teams. Does being a key contributor on a bunch of Stanley Cup championships only count if they were all strung together?

It's just hard knowing that when Lidstrom won the Conn Smythe he did it with potentially nine (considering Datsyuk) Hall of Famers...and compare that to Bourque who had to drag his team to the Cup Finals in 1988...

Such a stark difference in supporting casts, and that's part of what makes Lidstrom vs. Bourque so hard to call...

 

[seventieslord]

All-Star nominations are nice but not as nice as more Norris.

Indulge me for a second.

How many "accomplishment points" is a Norris trophy worth?
what about finishing 2nd?
what about finishing 3rd?
how about 4th?

when you consider the answers to these questions, consider the accomplishments in a vaccuum. For example: If you think being 1st is 5X more impressive than being 4th, it follows that you truly believe that a player with one Norris win and nothing else, has done better than a guy who placed 4th four times. It doesn't sound right to me, but you are free to have your own criteria, sir.

Now when you're done, add up what they did in your careers based on your assigned scores.

Bourque had 5 wins, and was 2nd, 3rd, and 4th 6, 4, and 4 times.
Lidstrom scores 7, 3, 1, 1.

I would be interested to see what type of scoring system makes Lidstrom the better all-time player at this point.

Or, maybe just avoid comparing players from different eras

No thanks, I think we will all just keep doing what we are most passionate about.

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

well-said.

The problem is you aren't comparing them the right way, because the different voting systems make those percentages apples and oranges. The right measure is using Hockey Outsider's Norris trophy shares statistic.

that is, as long as you believe the 5-3-1 voting points system isn't incredibly flawed.

Actually, according to my math, 60>56>48>38>>26>13>12>8, and those bolded ones are all Bourque. I didn't even have to calculate anything, btw, those numbers are out there for anyone else to reference. And if there's no difference to you between beating perennial Norris candidates and past greats in their prime, and beating past-their-prime greats and one year wonders, then I guess we'll never meet eye to eye as far as "rationalizing" relative levels of competition among the "elites" is concerned.

I have to say that I have read this whole chain of communication between the two of you, and I think you are clearly correct.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

It's just hard knowing that when Lidstrom won the Conn Smythe he did it with potentially nine (considering Datsyuk) Hall of Famers...and compare that to Bourque who had to drag his team to the Cup Finals in 1988...

Such a stark difference in supporting casts, and that's part of what makes Lidstrom vs. Bourque so hard to call...

Indeed. Neely was Bourque's only hall of fame companion on that run (afaik), and he remains one of the more controversial inclusions to date. Random stat from the '88 Oilers that beat the Bruins that year: 7 players had shooting percentages in the playoffs over 20% (c.f. 4 in the regular season), and Gretzky wasn't one of them (pre or post season). That's ridiculous.