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

[Epsilon]

The original statement he made was clearly incorrect, which was, and I quote:

And still, Lidstrom is winning Norrises by slim margins while Bourque was winning them by 40-90% over the next best guy

Nothing about that is qualified in any way. It's an absolute statement of fact that is simply not true, even if it is in specific cases.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

The original statement he made was clearly incorrect, which was, and I quote:



Nothing about that is qualified in any way. It's an absolute statement of fact that is simply not true, even if it is in specific cases.

A apologize for putting an asterisk or sorts next to Lidstrom's win over Phaneuf. That aside, the only way it was "incorrect" is if you dispute the semantics of "slim", or if you're holding me to the typo of 90, which I finally noticed. I do that with 6 and 9 sometimes... sue me.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And So It Goes

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?



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



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.

Draft, given that Lidstrom was picked 53rd and Chara was picked 56th their year of eligibility the draft has little relation, if any to a career.

Konstantinov, Gonchar, Zubov = 0 Norris Trophies combined, little chance of HHOF honours.

Visnovsky. Mike McMahon led NHL defensemen in scoring one season.

Kaberle and Hamrlik Bad teams had to be represented in the ASG.Kaberle on a SC team was not impressive. Hamrlik solid but not a HHOF talent for a top 3 pick which brings us full circle to your draft comments.

 

[seventieslord]

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".

you said "absolute prime", though, which is why I think TDMM spoke up. I agree with him; 1994 was Stevens' regular season apex... no question.

 

[Epsilon]

A apologize for putting an asterisk or sorts next to Lidstrom's win over Phaneuf. That aside, the only way it was "incorrect" is if you dispute the semantics of "slim", or if you're holding me to the typo of 90, which I finally noticed. I do that with 6 and 9 sometimes... sue me.

You said Bourque won his Norris trophies by 40-60% (accepting that correction), when that's only true for 3 of his 5 Norris trophies. 3/5 barely even qualifies as "most", let alone an unconditional statement the way you had it.

And after perusing the data a bit more, I don't even really buy that "% of Norris trophy shares ahead of 2nd" is the right way to determine whether or not a win is a blowout. It's more instructive to look at 1st place votes (and/or the distribution of votes in general). For example, Lidstrom's wins over Niedermayer don't seem all that large in terms of "percentage difference", but when you actually look at the numbers he had triple and double the 1st place votes Niedermayer did, and far fewer votes in the 3rd-5th place slots. Or in 2001-02 when he beat Bourque, Lidstrom had 56/62 1st place votes and only a single voter lower than 2nd, whereas Bourque and the next several players who finished behind him had a real mish-mash of votes (Bourque's line was 4-16-12-10-9, Blake's was 1-11-8-14-7). I don't see how wins such as those (and the year Phaneuf came in 2nd) can't be considered "blowout" wins considering the runner-up wasn't even close in 1st place votes or in concentration of their votes in the upper voting slots.

 

[Gobias Industries]

You said Bourque won his Norris trophies by 40-60% (accepting that correction), when that's only true for 3 of his 5 Norris trophies. 3/5 barely even qualifies as "most", let alone an unconditional statement the way you had it.

And after perusing the data a bit more, I don't even really buy that "% of Norris trophy shares ahead of 2nd" is the right way to determine whether or not a win is a blowout. It's more instructive to look at 1st place votes (and/or the distribution of votes in general). For example, Lidstrom's wins over Niedermayer don't seem all that large in terms of "percentage difference", but when you actually look at the numbers he had triple and double the 1st place votes Niedermayer did, and far fewer votes in the 3rd-5th place slots. Or in 2001-02 when he beat Bourque, Lidstrom had 56/62 1st place votes and only a single voter lower than 2nd, whereas Bourque and the next several players who finished behind him had a real mish-mash of votes (Bourque's line was 4-16-12-10-9, Blake's was 1-11-8-14-7). I don't see how wins such as those (and the year Phaneuf came in 2nd) can't be considered "blowout" wins considering the runner-up wasn't even close in 1st place votes or in concentration of their votes in the upper voting slots.

Without a doubt it's first place votes that should be used to determine whether or not it was a runaway, not points...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Without a doubt it's first place votes that should be used to determine whether or not it was a runaway, not points...

I agree. Both men had their share of blowouts and close wins. By my definition of "blowout," Lidstrom had more than Bourque, but of course, he did face lower competition ON AVERAGE than Bourque did.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

you said "absolute prime", though, which is why I think TDMM spoke up. I agree with him; 1994 was Stevens' regular season apex... no question.

Sure, fair enough. That's why I qualified it like I did. I'll adjust it to remove any further ambiguities and say that, imo, he was clearly in his prime at that time. Or, another way of putting it, if you asked me if Stevens had entered his prime by the '87/88 season, I would answer "absolutely".

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Without a doubt it's first place votes that should be used to determine whether or not it was a runaway, not points...

You're probably right. But even then, after "runaway" is defined, I'm still going to look at who they "ran away" from, where they were in their career and what level they were playing at, and adjust my perception of which is more "impressive" accordingly. After all, if we want to get really anal about it, we could delve into which "runaways" were "domination", and which were "default".

 

[Gobias Industries]

You're probably right. But even then, after "runaway" is defined, I'm still going to look at who they "ran away" from, where they were in their career and what level they were playing at, and adjust my perception of which is more "impressive" accordingly. After all, if we want to get really anal about it, we could delve into which "runaways" were "domination", and which were "default".

Absolutely...

I've been working on a consolidated excel file of all the award voting (ever!) and when I get home from work I'm looking forward to comparing the top All-Star vote getters during Bourque's career, and comparing that to Lidstrom's...

What I'm expecting is to see a clear divide of 5-6 (Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, MacInnis, Blake) elite defenceman during Bourque's career...with basically no comparables outside of Niedermayer and Pronger (and to a lesser extent) during Lidstrom's career...

 

[BraveCanadian]

What I'm expecting is to see a clear divide of 5-6 (Chelios, Leetch, Coffey, MacInnis, Blake) elite defenceman during Bourque's career...with basically no comparables outside of Niedermayer and Pronger (and to a lesser extent) during Lidstrom's career...

The big issue with all the competition arguments against Lidstrom is that he faced the same competition Bourque did for half a career.

They played in the same NHL for 10 seasons!

That leaves you with 79-80 to 90-91 to make your whole competition was different argument.

Then factor in that Bourque missed significant time each season between 80 and 83 and now you're down to 84-91. He also missed significant time in 88-89.

Then put in that Bourque won 4 of his Norris trophies in that time span and you're down to 3 years where the "tougher" competition was beating Bourque out for Norris trophies he "would have won against Lidstrom's competition".

83-84 - the second of the Langway Norris trophies.. I don't know how he would have won that one when the voters were going against the grain

84-85 - Coffey 121 points. Neither Lidstrom or Bourque are going to win against a season like that from a cup winning-dynamo.

85-86 - Coffey 138 points. Ditto except for the upset in the playoffs.

Each of Bourque and Lidstrom faced competition at times that was very strong. One season wonders count the same! I do think that Bourque faced a higher average competition but it really doesn't matter when you're a Bourque or a Lidstrom.

Both of them were better on average than their competition and it was only when the other guys were having their big seasons where everything went right for the competition (Coffey, Langway for Bourque, or Pronger / Niedermayer for Lidstrom for example) that they didn't win.

The big difference is that Lidstrom didn't take himself out of the running by getting hurt for 15 games plus in 5 seasons. Bourque could very well have won a couple more himself if he had stayed healthy. Not getting hurt is definitely one of the advantages of Lidstrom's more passive positioning/pokechecking style.

I mean I go back and forth as to who I would pick as the better defenseman all time but some of these arguments against Lidstrom are crazy. The guy has done it all and been a class act his whole career.

I'm almost starting to believe some of the Canadian bias people are bringing up here..

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Great point about Bourque's injuries.

Once again, Bourque faces greater competition ON AVERAGE than Lidstrom, but it wasn't consistently amazing. The year he beat out pre-discipline Scott Stevens seems very much like Lidstrom over Phaneuf to me. Anyone who really remembers the late 80s care to comment? Am I underrating pre-90s Stevens?

BC, you are forgetting about one man who really did beat out Bourque a few times, even when Bourque was having great seasons - prime Chris Chelios. Lidstrom never faced anyone as strong as prime Chelios. There's a good argument that for a few years, Chelios was just as good at both ends as Bourque and Lidstrom - difference being that Chelios' time as an impact offensive player was much shorter.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Great point about Bourque's injuries.

Once again, Bourque faces greater competition ON AVERAGE than Lidstrom, but it wasn't consistently amazing. The year he beat out pre-discipline Scott Stevens seems very much like Lidstrom over Phaneuf to me. Anyone who really remembers the late 80s care to comment? Am I underrating pre-90s Stevens?

No, that's a pretty bang on assessment IMO.
Stevens was an intimidating and impressive player right out of the gate (I watched him with the Kitchener Rangers as well) but suffered notable stretches of undisciplined and unfocused play.
Just like Pronger, Neids and Chara after him, consistency came slowly and not all steps taken were always of the forward variety year to year.

BC, you are forgetting about one man who really did beat out Bourque a few times, even when Bourque was having great seasons - prime Chris Chelios. Lidstrom never faced anyone as strong as prime Chelios. There's a good argument that for a few years, Chelios was just as good at both ends as Bourque and Lidstrom - difference being that Chelios' time as an impact offensive player was much shorter.

Exactly and maybe saying Lidstrom's competition was weak might not be totally accurate but it was without a shadow of a doubt, much more inconsistent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Great point about Bourque's injuries.

Once again, Bourque faces greater competition ON AVERAGE than Lidstrom, but it wasn't consistently amazing. The year he beat out pre-discipline Scott Stevens seems very much like Lidstrom over Phaneuf to me. Anyone who really remembers the late 80s care to comment? Am I underrating pre-90s Stevens?

BC, you are forgetting about one man who really did beat out Bourque a few times, even when Bourque was having great seasons - prime Chris Chelios. Lidstrom never faced anyone as strong as prime Chelios. There's a good argument that for a few years, Chelios was just as good at both ends as Bourque and Lidstrom - difference being that Chelios' time as an impact offensive player was much shorter.

Bourque missed 20 games in the 88-89 season where Chelios won his first.

92-93 and 95-96 Lidstrom was in the league (and admittedly in 92-93 not in his prime yet) so at that point they are both competing against Chelios.

Both Lidstrom and Bourque each have a few seasons where they could have won the Norris and no one would have batted an eye.

It doesn't really change my point that the competition argument is terribly over blown.

As for Stevens he did get much stronger in the 90s in my opinion.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Whatever happened to Lidstrom vs. Harvey?

 

[seventieslord]

Whatever happened to Lidstrom vs. Harvey?

If anything, this thread has reminded me just how dominant Harvey was. His 7 norrises are of a different nature than Lidstrom's. This shouldn't be a discussion, not anymore. There is at least some merit to lidstrom/bourque/shore debates, though.

I personally have him 5th. The next tier is practically impossible for him to break into, IMO. And I was one of the first 4 years ago to start touting lidstrom over robinson for 6th, and one of the first to tout him for 5th over potvin, too.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If anything, this thread has reminded me just how dominant Harvey was. His 7 norrises are of a different nature than Lidstrom's. This shouldn't be a discussion, not anymore. There is at least some merit to lidstrom/bourque/shore debates, though.

I personally have him 5th. The next tier is practically impossible for him to break into, IMO. And I was one of the first 4 years ago to start touting lidstrom over robinson for 6th, and one of the first to tout him for 5th over potvin, too.

Is this because of the longevity and era?

I still think Potvin was the better player. He was dominate right out of juniors.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Is this because of the longevity and era?

I still think Potvin was the better player. He was dominate right out of juniors.

I personally think that Potvin's run up to 80 when he was injured was simply smashign and pretty close to what Orr did, ironically team success in the playoffs started his peak 4 year run in the playoffs.

If Potvin had stayed healthy he would rank up there with Lidstrom/Orr but he didn't.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Bourque missed 20 games in the 88-89 season where Chelios won his first.

92-93 and 95-96 Lidstrom was in the league (and admittedly in 92-93 not in his prime yet) so at that point they are both competing against Chelios.

Both Lidstrom and Bourque each have a few seasons where they could have won the Norris and no one would have batted an eye.

It doesn't really change my point that the competition argument is terribly over blown.

As for Stevens he did get much stronger in the 90s in my opinion.

Thing is, Bourque beat Chelios repeatedly for the Norris when they were both in their prime. Same with Coffey. Look at the Norris record, it goes Coffey->Bourque->Chelios->Bourque->Leetch->Chelios->Bourque->Coffey->Chelios->Leetch (bolded are the first overlap years with Lidstrom and the rest of the list). Then, at the "end" of all of their careers, and after MacInnis was over the hill as well and got his Norris, Lidstrom turned 30 and started winning Norrises. Even Rob Blake and Leetch were into their 30s before Lidstrom started winning Norris trophies. Think about it for a second: Lidstrom won his first Norris in '00/01. Bourque retired that year at age 40. Coffey retired that year at 39. Chelios somehow didn't retire, but he was still 39 (and missed most of that season with a knee injury). The remaining "top guys"? Blake, Leetch, and MacInnis, all in their 30s (and MacInnis just a couple of years from retirement), plus Pronger. How does this possibly constitute anything close to "the same" competition during the overlap?

So yes, there was overlap indeed, with Bourque playing against those guys at their best, and Lidstrom playing against those guys at the end of their careers. So if the major offense is being taken by the phrasing of "Lidstrom faced weak competition", let's all just look at it instead from the perspective that Bourque simply faced more difficult competition, and avoid "slighting" Lidstrom.

And also, I don't know if no one started giving Stevens any credit for his talent before he had Cup rings to go with it in New Jersey, but he was awesome with Washington, even if he WAS even better in New Jersey. Larry Murphy is in the Hall of fame, and was only in his mid-20s at the time, and he and Stevens flip-flopped as the top scoring defenseman on the Capitals for a few years, and next to only Mike Gartner as the team's leading scorer. That's fairly impressive right there.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Thing is, Bourque beat Chelios repeatedly for the Norris when they were both in their prime. Same with Coffey. Look at the Norris record, it goes Coffey->Bourque->Chelios->Bourque->Leetch->Chelios->Bourque->Coffey->Chelios->Leetch (bolded are the first overlap years with Lidstrom and the rest of the list). Then, at the "end" of all of their careers, and after MacInnis was over the hill as well and got his Norris, Lidstrom turned 30 and started winning Norrises. Even Rob Blake and Leetch were into their 30s before Lidstrom started winning Norris trophies. Think about it for a second: Lidstrom won his first Norris in '00/01. Bourque retired that year at age 40. Coffey retired that year at 39. Chelios somehow didn't retire, but he was still 39 (and missed most of that season with a knee injury). The remaining "top guys"? Blake, Leetch, and MacInnis, all in their 30s (and MacInnis just a couple of years from retirement), plus Pronger. How does this possibly constitute anything close to "the same" competition during the overlap?

So yes, there was overlap indeed, with Bourque playing against those guys at their best, and Lidstrom playing against those guys at the end of their careers. So if the major offense is being taken by the phrasing of "Lidstrom faced weak competition", let's all just look at it instead from the perspective that Bourque simply faced more difficult competition, and avoid "slighting" Lidstrom.

And also, I don't know if no one started giving Stevens any credit for his talent before he had Cup rings to go with it in New Jersey, but he was awesome with Washington, even if he WAS even better in New Jersey. Larry Murphy is in the Hall of fame, and was only in his mid-20s at the time, and he and Stevens flip-flopped as the top scoring defenseman on the Capitals for a few years, and next to only Mike Gartner as the team's leading scorer. That's fairly impressive right there.

I think MacInnis and Stevens were clearly better later in their careers than earlier. Bourque, Chelios and Leetch were also fairly unique in maintaining excellent play later in their careers, so I wouldn't completely dismiss them as old goats when they were competing with Lidstrom.

From '96 till '01, so 6 straight seasons, Lidstrom did beat Bourque in each year's Norris voting. I think a lot of people just assume Bourque was better until '01 when Lidstrom finally won.

No question Bourque faced better competition, but Lidstrom faced better competition than Shore and a comparable amount to Harvey.

 

[BraveCanadian]

How does this possibly constitute anything close to "the same" competition during the overlap?

They were both facing the exact same competition for the half of their careers that overlapped. I think that is pretty straightforward.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shore's Competition

I think MacInnis was clearly better later in his career than earlier. Bourque, Chelios, Leetch and Stevens were also fairly unique in maintaining excellent play later in their careers, so I wouldn't completely dismiss them as old goats when they were competing with Lidstrom.

From '96 till '01, so 6 straight seasons, Lidstrom did beat Bourque in each year's Norris voting. I think a lot of people just assume Bourque was better until '01 when Lidstrom finally won.

No question Bourque faced better competition, but Lidstrom faced better competition than Shore and a comparable amount to Harvey.

Shore's competition. Factor in that it was pre Red Line but mainly post liberalized forward passing, with the dictates of smaller rosters.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Shore's competition. Factor in that it was pre Red Line but mainly post liberalized forward passing, with the dictates of smaller rosters.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_played

I'm fine just disagreeing on this one, but I really put less stock in the competition level of Pre-Original 6 hockey than many who simply go by performance against peers, regardless of era. I don't see too many people ranking Earl Seibert ahead of Denis Potvin, for example.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

They were both facing the exact same competition for the half of their careers that overlapped. I think that is pretty straightforward.

Same names on paper, you mean. And that's the extent of it. I salute your persistence in being obtuse about it, though. Next you'll be championing the cause of Trottier>Orr, because during the 3 seasons of overlap, only Trottier won a Hart.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think MacInnis and Stevens were clearly better later in their careers than earlier. Bourque, Chelios and Leetch were also fairly unique in maintaining excellent play later in their careers, so I wouldn't completely dismiss them as old goats when they were competing with Lidstrom.

From '96 till '01, so 6 straight seasons, Lidstrom did beat Bourque in each year's Norris voting. I think a lot of people just assume Bourque was better until '01 when Lidstrom finally won.

No question Bourque faced better competition, but Lidstrom faced better competition than Shore and a comparable amount to Harvey.

Actually, Bourque came in a close 2nd to Chelios in '96 (they both kinda spanked the field). But yes, in '97, on one of the best Red Wings teams of all time (we're all familiar with the lineup), Lidstrom got 15 more votes than Bourque, who missed 20 games for the last in the league Bruins (who tried 6 goalies and 38 skaters that year), and that trend would continue right up to the year Bourque retired and finished 2nd to Lidstrom in Norris voting.

I know it's nitpicky, but that's 5 seasons, not 6, and one of them gets a big asterisk as far as I'm concerned (since they were 6th and 8th in voting to begin with, and considering Bourque missed 20 games that year).