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

[RabbinsDuck]

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).

Oops, 5.

Of the ten years these two competed with each other, both finish ahead of the other 5 times. Bourque, known for his longevity, bats only .500 against a younger "didn't become great until 30" Lidstrom. I think a lot assume it is much heavily tipped in Bourque's favor.

20 games missed to injury does not impress me that much.

I don't think it is wrong to have Bourque over Lidstrom, I just feel it is a lot closer than many give credit to.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Oops, 5.

Of the ten years these two competed with each other, both finish ahead of the other 5 times. Bourque, known for his longevity, bats only .500 against a younger "didn't become great until 30" Lidstrom. I think a lot assume it is much heavily tipped in Bourque's favor.

20 games missed to injury does not impress me that much.

I don't think it is wrong to have Bourque over Lidstrom, I just feel it is a lot closer than many give credit to.

Any idea who has missed the most games and still won the Norris? Check the list and see how far back in time you have to look to find a Norris winner who played 60 games. Then realize that his name was Orr, and the seasons were shorter. We all know that partial seasons cost you votes, much like it cost Crosby his Hart and/or Lindsay this past year.

And I, conversely, think that Lidstrom wasn't as good of a defenseman in his 20s as some give him credit for. It's fun to pretend that he was just always this guy whose cerebral style of defense was super effective and just went quietly unnoticed, but that's not the case, really. Everyone was watching Detroit pretty closely all year, with all the talk of possibly ending a near 50 year Cup drought in Hockeytown (which they ultimately did), and teammate Konstantinov actually won the Norris in this '97 year we're talking about (the first year Lidstrom passed Bourque in Norris voting). While very solid and an obvious talent, he started earning his reputation as a top offensive defender via the points he put on the board playing on one of the strongest teams I think I personally have ever seen. To his credit, he was never as reliant on his offense for success as guys like Zubov or Gonchar, but Bourque could have scored half as many points over his career and still deserved to be ahead in this comparison, imo. Point being, at the beginning of the clutch and grab era, when guys like Blake and Hatcher were the best things since sliced bread, Lidstrom had relatively little "shutdown" value, whereas Bourque continued to fill that role pretty much right up until his final days when he was traded to a stronger, more balanced, Avalanche team.

 

[danincanada]

And I, conversely, think that Lidstrom wasn't as good of a defenseman in his 20s as some give him credit for. It's fun to pretend that he was just always this guy whose cerebral style of defense was super effective and just went quietly unnoticed, but that's not the case, really. Everyone was watching Detroit pretty closely all year, with all the talk of possibly ending a near 50 year Cup drought in Hockeytown (which they ultimately did), and teammate Konstantinov actually won the Norris in this '97 year we're talking about (the first year Lidstrom passed Bourque in Norris voting). While very solid and an obvious talent, he started earning his reputation as a top offensive defender via the points he put on the board playing on one of the strongest teams I think I personally have ever seen. To his credit, he was never as reliant on his offense for success as guys like Zubov or Gonchar, but Bourque could have scored half as many points over his career and still deserved to be ahead in this comparison, imo. Point being, at the beginning of the clutch and grab era, when guys like Blake and Hatcher were the best things since sliced bread, Lidstrom had relatively little "shutdown" value, whereas Bourque continued to fill that role pretty much right up until his final days when he was traded to a stronger, more balanced, Avalanche team.

Maybe you don't mean to generalize Lidstrom's 20s this much but either way it seems like you didn't see enough of Lidstrom or watch closely enough early on. I've watched him since the start of his career and Lidstrom was always that cerebral and great defensive player. He was +36 in his rookie season and +43 in his 3rd year after a bit of a sophomore setback in his 2nd and those were his early 20s. He may not have been as "polished" and perfect in his early 20s as he was in his prime because he had to mature and adapt to the North American game, but from the start he was an incredibly smart and well positioned palyer who rarely got beat 1 on 1. I felt he was always better defensively than Blake and Hatcher, which is why the 98' Norris voting seems even more out to lunch.

His 20's also included, what I consider to be part of his prime starting in '97, being the #1 defenseman on back to back cup winners where he played the shutdown role perfectly. In hindsight, I would definitely take his game over Konstantinov in '97 - who didn't win the Norris that year btw, but he was nominated. If you watch games from those playoffs again you see Vladdy, while great and physical, making some mistakes and turnovers while Lidstrom is close to his very best. Perfect decisions with the puck, never getting beat 1 on 1, playing efficiently without penalties and being part of the offense. Bowman knew what he was doing when he chose Lidstrom to face the Legion of Doom in the finals. Then without Konstantiov the next season in and playoffs in '98 Lidstrom played even better and firmly took over the #1 D role, winning another cup. Then, after winning 2 cups in a row as a #1 defenseman he loses what would be his first Norris to Rob Blake, who has a great season but is behind Lidstrom in every facet of the game other than scoring goals and hitting.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Maybe you don't mean to generalize Lidstrom's 20s this much but either way it seems like you didn't see enough of Lidstrom or watch closely enough early on. I've watched him since the start of his career and Lidstrom was always that cerebral and great defensive player. He was +36 in his rookie season and +43 in his 3rd year after a bit of a sophomore setback in his 2nd and those were his early 20s. He may not have been as "polished" and perfect like he was in his prime because he had to mature and adapt to the North American game, but from the start he was an incredibly smart and well positioned palyer who rarely got beat 1 on 1. I think he was always better defensively than Blake and Hatcher, which is why the 98' Norris voting seems even more out to lunch.

His 20's also included, what I consider to be part of his prime starting in '97, being the #1 defenseman on back to back cup winners where he played the shutdown role perfectly. In hindsight, I would definitely take his game over Konstantinov in '97 - who didn't win the Norris that year btw, but he was nominated. If you watch games from those playoffs again you see Vladdy, while great, making some mistakes and turnovers while Lidstrom is close to his very best. Bowman knew what he was doing when he chose Lidstrom to face the Legion of Doom in the finals. Then without Konstantiov the next season in and playoffs in '98 Lidstrom played even better and firmly took over the #1 D role, winning another cup.

Haha, yeah whoops. Second in voting to Leetch, can't believe I glossed over that. These games are on the NHL network all the time, btw, so it's not like I haven't seen them in over a decade. And yes, I did generalize Lidstrom's primarily offensive value into his entire 20s with my wording, and that's obviously inaccurate. But I don't want to turn this into a whole lot of tearing Lidstrom down, because the point is that Bourque, in his mid/late 30s, was still playing 30 mins/game at a similar level to Lidstrom in his early years.

And the fact that examination on both superficial and in-depth levels (ex: of stats, votes, roles, mins played, competition, etc) suggests that they were on par with each other in Bourque's twilight/Lidstrom's early years, despite the vast disparity between the strength of their relative clubs, is further testament to exactly how great Bourque was, and why it's absolutely no slight for Lidstrom to be occupying a rung below him on the all-time greats ladder.

 

[danincanada]

Haha, yeah whoops. Second in voting to Leetch, can't believe I glossed over that. These games are on the NHL network all the time, btw, so it's not like I haven't seen them in over a decade. And yes, I did generalize Lidstrom's primarily offensive value into his entire 20s with my wording, and that's obviously inaccurate. But I don't want to turn this into a whole lot of tearing Lidstrom down, because the point is that Bourque, in his mid/late 30s, was still playing 30 mins/game at a similar level to Lidstrom in his early years.

And the fact that examination on both superficial and in-depth levels (ex: of stats, votes, roles, mins played, competition, etc) suggests that they were on par with each other in Bourque's twilight/Lidstrom's early years, despite the vast disparity between the strength of their relative clubs, is further testament to exactly how great Bourque was, and why it's absolutely no slight for Lidstrom to be occupying a rung below him on the all-time greats ladder.

Bourque and Lidstrom are approximately 10 years apart so in Bourque's mid/late 30s Lidstrom was in his mid/late 20s. By 27 Lidstrom won his first cup and the following 3 years he was runner up for the Norris; obviously finishing ahead of Bourque. I don't know what you expected from Bourque in those later years but both he and Lidstrom played close to their prime level until 40 IMO - there were some dips but never a huge dropoff as long as health wasn't an issue. Chelios and MacInnis are other examples of this. As long as these guys were healthy they could perform at amazingly high levels using their smarts and experience.

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that because Bourque was still a great player in his late 30s and at 40 that he was better than Lidstrom in terms of career. To say the two were on par when Lidstrom was winning Cups and getting very so close to the Norris, and arguably deserving better fates in voting, is also a stretch IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Early Lidstrom

Maybe you don't mean to generalize Lidstrom's 20s this much but either way it seems like you didn't see enough of Lidstrom or watch closely enough early on. I've watched him since the start of his career and Lidstrom was always that cerebral and great defensive player. He was +36 in his rookie season and +43 in his 3rd year after a bit of a sophomore setback in his 2nd and those were his early 20s. He may not have been as "polished" and perfect in his early 20s as he was in his prime because he had to mature and adapt to the North American game, but from the start he was an incredibly smart and well positioned palyer who rarely got beat 1 on 1. I felt he was always better defensively than Blake and Hatcher, which is why the 98' Norris voting seems even more out to lunch.

His 20's also included, what I consider to be part of his prime starting in '97, being the #1 defenseman on back to back cup winners where he played the shutdown role perfectly. In hindsight, I would definitely take his game over Konstantinov in '97 - who didn't win the Norris that year btw, but he was nominated. If you watch games from those playoffs again you see Vladdy, while great and physical, making some mistakes and turnovers while Lidstrom is close to his very best. Perfect decisions with the puck, never getting beat 1 on 1, playing efficiently without penalties and being part of the offense. Bowman knew what he was doing when he chose Lidstrom to face the Legion of Doom in the finals. Then without Konstantiov the next season in and playoffs in '98 Lidstrom played even better and firmly took over the #1 D role, winning another cup. Then, after winning 2 cups in a row as a #1 defenseman he loses what would be his first Norris to Rob Blake, who has a great season but is behind Lidstrom in every facet of the game other than scoring goals and hitting.

Bit of a stretch with some exaggeration.

There were reasons why Nicklas Lidstrom was drafted in the third round in 1989. Even on his Swedish team he was viewed as being behind Patrik Juhlin drafted about 20 spots higher. Today people categorize him as a steal but Lidstrom's play in the various international tournaments and the 1991 Canada Cup did little to portend his eventual talent level. Granted there are dmen who are drafted beyond the first round in the NHL entry draft and go on to shine but such situations always come with solid reasons not hidden behind vague explanations.

So what were the reasons and what happened in Detroit to elevate his game? Coaching, defensive partners at the start, system, etc.?

 

[danincanada]

Bit of a stretch with some exaggeration.

There were reasons why Nicklas Lidstrom was drafted in the third round in 1989. Even on his Swedish team he was viewed as being behind Patrik Juhlin drafted about 20 spots higher. Today people categorize him as a steal but Lidstrom's play in the various international tournaments and the 1991 Canada Cup did little to portend his eventual talent level. Granted there are dmen who are drafted beyond the first round in the NHL entry draft and go on to shine but such situations always come with solid reasons not hidden behind vague explanations.

So what were the reasons and what happened in Detroit to elevate his game? Coaching, defensive partners at the start, system, etc.?

You can question his drafting position all you want but the fact is he played in the Canada Cup as a 21 and was +36 with 60 points in his rookie season, losing the Calder to a flashier Bure. This wasn't some young scrub who suddenly became a superstar. His draft year was likely similar to his early career; subtle and efficient dominance but not flashy enough to garner the attention he deserves.

His game elevated with age and experience as it does with nearly all players. Being Swedish, I'm sure he also had to adapt to the North American game. Starting off a career with Brad McCrimmon as a defense partner in his rookie season helped him start to mold his defensive game. Playing the point on the PP with Coffey after that certainly helped futher develop his offensive game as well. Playing under Bowman could never hurt but Lidstrom was always described as low maintenance and it's not like Bowman taught him to play defense. He obviously soaked everything in but he was already very strong all-around before Bowman came to Detroit.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Bourque and Lidstrom are approximately 10 years apart so in Bourque's mid/late 30s Lidstrom was in his mid/late 20s. By 27 Lidstrom won his first cup and the following 3 years he was runner up for the Norris; obviously finishing ahead of Bourque. I don't know what you expected from Bourque in those later years but both he and Lidstrom played close to their prime level until 40 IMO - there were some dips but never a huge dropoff as long as health wasn't an issue. Chelios and MacInnis are other examples of this. As long as these guys were healthy they could perform at amazingly high levels using their smarts and experience.

I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that because Bourque was still a great player in his late 30s and at 40 that he was better than Lidstrom in terms of career. To say the two were on par when Lidstrom was winning Cups and getting very so close to the Norris, and arguably deserving better fates in voting, is also a stretch IMO.

I'm not assuming anything, really. I'm old enough and have been an over-the-moon avid hockey fan long enough to have seen almost the entirety of BOTH of their careers (one playing on the major rival of my favourite team, and the other on my second favourite team). And I'm telling you, from where I stand, that the best I ever saw/heard of from Bourque was better than the best I've seen/heard of from Lidstrom. And not just one particular/special year... long stretches.

All the same cerebral and offensive aspects, but with the added physicality, aggressiveness and sheer will-power/determination that he used to drag bad teams deeper into seasons than perhaps they deserved. I've never seen Lidstrom play on a squad that required that much from a single player, so I guess I'm skeptical of his ability to use his polish and slickness to achieve the same kind of impact. To be clear, I consider this edge to Bourque because of what he DID in the situation, not blindly because of what his teammates DIDN'T.

It's still a bit unfair to Lidstrom, who played on great teams, but I value results over potential, so it is what it is. It's one of those stretches that can be compared to what Gretzky did in LA, for example, which gives particular insight into the exact extent/depth/breadth of a single player's greatness, even if we knew they were great to begin with.

And 10 years apart is fairly huge. Bourque was already 31 in Lidstrom's first year in the league. It's kind of amazing, despite his own greatness, that Bourque in his early/mid 30s was able to keep pace with another of the best defensemen the league has ever seen while in his early 20s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Brad McCrimmon etc

You can question his drafting position all you want but the fact is he played in the Canada Cup as a 21 and was +36 with 60 points in his rookie season, losing the Calder to a flashier Bure. This wasn't some young scrub who suddenly became a superstar. His draft year was likely similar to his early career; subtle and efficient dominance but not flashy enough to garner the attention he deserves.

His game elevated with age and experience as it does with nearly all players. Being Swedish, I'm sure he also had to adapt to the North American game. Starting off a career with Brad McCrimmon as a defense partner in his rookie season helped him start to mold his defensive game. Playing the point on the PP with Coffey after that certainly helped futher develop his offensive game as well. Playing under Bowman could never hurt but Lidstrom was always described as low maintenance and it's not like Bowman taught him to play defense. He obviously soaked everything in but he was already very strong all-around before Bowman came to Detroit.

Now we are getting somewhere. The same Brad McCrimmon who previously played with Ray Bourque, Mark Howe, Al MacInnis.

The same Scotty Bowman who coached Doug Harvey, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe.

The same Paul Coffey who played with Gretzky Messier, Mario Lemieux.Now I wiil grant that it takes skill and intellect to blend all of these advantages into a cohesive and distinct style that as at or near the elite level for over twelve years but all these great hockey legacies were passed on to Nicklas Lidstrom.

Now it is up to him to pass on a legacy of his own.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not assuming anything, really. I'm old enough and have been an over-the-moon avid hockey fan long enough to have seen almost the entirety of BOTH of their careers (one playing on the major rival of my favourite team, and the other on my second favourite team). And I'm telling you, from where I stand, that the best I ever saw/heard of from Bourque was better than the best I've seen/heard of from Lidstrom. And not just one particular/special year... long stretches.

All the same cerebral and offensive aspects, but with the added physicality, aggressiveness and sheer will-power/determination that he used to drag bad teams deeper into seasons than perhaps they deserved. I've never seen Lidstrom play on a squad that required that much from a single player, so I guess I'm skeptical of his ability to use his polish and slickness to achieve the same kind of impact. To be clear, I consider this edge to Bourque because of what he DID in the situation, not blindly because of what his teammates DIDN'T.

It's still a bit unfair to Lidstrom, who played on great teams, but I value results over potential, so it is what it is. It's one of those stretches that can be compared to what Gretzky did in LA, for example, which gives particular insight into the exact extent/depth/breadth of a single player's greatness, even if we knew they were great to begin with.

And 10 years apart is fairly huge. Bourque was already 31 in Lidstrom's first year in the league. It's kind of amazing, despite his own greatness, that Bourque in his early/mid 30s was able to keep pace with another of the best defensemen the league has ever seen while in his early 20s.

I really don't think any useful conclusion cam be drawn from their time in the league together.

Bourque's last truly elite season was 95-96, other than his resurgence in 00-01. Lidstrom's coming out party as a top two-way defenseman is generally considered to be the 1997 playoffs, though I'm willing to believe Red Wings fans who say he was really that good all through 96-97 but nobody noticed until he shut down Lindros. Either way, their primes basically did not overlap at all (I wouldn't call 00-01 a prime year for Bourque, since he had several very good but not elite seasons before it in his late 30s).

 

[Hanji]

Now we are getting somewhere. The same Brad McCrimmon who previously played with Ray Bourque, Mark Howe, Al MacInnis.

The same Scotty Bowman who coached Doug Harvey, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe.

The same Paul Coffey who played with Gretzky Messier, Mario Lemieux.Now I wiil grant that it takes skill and intellect to blend all of these advantages into a cohesive and distinct style that as at or near the elite level for over twelve years but all these great hockey legacies were passed on to Nicklas Lidstrom.

Now it is up to him to pass on a legacy of his own.

Those are some extremely liberal and and open ended examples of "passing on one's legacy".

 

[danincanada]

All the same cerebral and offensive aspects, but with the added physicality, aggressiveness and sheer will-power/determination that he used to drag bad teams deeper into seasons than perhaps they deserved. I've never seen Lidstrom play on a squad that required that much from a single player, so I guess I'm skeptical of his ability to use his polish and slickness to achieve the same kind of impact. To be clear, I consider this edge to Bourque because of what he DID in the situation, not blindly because of what his teammates DIDN'T.

Lidstrom's teams needed him to be that # 1 defenseman who not only shut down the opposition's best but also was their top offensive guy on the point. Sure he generally had more help than Bourque but you can't punish Lidstrom simply because he was surrounded by other great players. You can't assume Bourque would be as successful in the same situation because it never happened. Lidstrom DID win multiple Cups and Norris' and he was a huge part of any success the Red Wings have had so we must look at what did happen.

Bourque was not as good defensively as Lidstrom IMO, either positionally or as a shutdown guy. He got beat one on one far more than Lidstrom did when each were in their primes. I don't see being physical as giving another dman an edge when comparing another defender to Lidstrom. Like Gretzky, his play did not require physicality to be effective.

And 10 years apart is fairly huge. Bourque was already 31 in Lidstrom's first year in the league. It's kind of amazing, despite his own greatness, that Bourque in his early/mid 30s was able to keep pace with another of the best defensemen the league has ever seen while in his early 20s.

My point about 10 years apart is that it's easy to know what age each were when comparing them. Where I think you are really offbase is with this notion that a defenseman in his early 20's should have an advantage over a defenseman in his early 30's due to their ages. From most examples we have seen in the last 20 years this is simply not the case. Star defenseman typically reach their peak after 25 and can continue playing at that level until 35 or even into their late 30's provided health is not an issue. Again, Lidstrom, Bourque, MacInnis, Chelios and even Stevens are all examples of this.

 

[CarlWinslow]

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.

What???

We don't have to remove anybody. The entire point is that the expansion of the league doesn't necessarily equate to more top end talent and top end talent is what matters in this discussion.

Harvey played in an era where there were 36 defensemen at the NHL level. Yeah, there were not many foreign player sin the league but I would venture to say that the 36 best defensemen in Canada back then were as talented as the 180 best now, no matter where they come from.

Even if you somehow disagree with that and feel that there were a bushel full of great hidden defensemen overseas during Harvey's era, top end talent is what is relevant. Put the 5 best defenseman of Harvey's era up against today's 5 best and Harvey clearly had stiffer competition for Norris trophies.

 

[danincanada]

Now we are getting somewhere. The same Brad McCrimmon who previously played with Ray Bourque, Mark Howe, Al MacInnis.

The same Scotty Bowman who coached Doug Harvey, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe.

The same Paul Coffey who played with Gretzky Messier, Mario Lemieux.Now I wiil grant that it takes skill and intellect to blend all of these advantages into a cohesive and distinct style that as at or near the elite level for over twelve years but all these great hockey legacies were passed on to Nicklas Lidstrom.

Now it is up to him to pass on a legacy of his own.

I'm not really sure what you're getting with this in terms of Lidstrom's ranking all-time. Coaches and teammates are supposed to work together and strive to improve and win. If you are trying to imply that hockey hasn't evolved and grown over the years with this then you are really grasping.

Lidstrom has already passed on "his legacy" and will continue to do so next season. His coach and teammates call him "the perfect human" because of his demeanor both off and on the ice and the whole team looks up to him and tries to emulate him. It's a benefit to the Red Wings organization to keep him around as long as possible to help pass on those traits he has to the next generation. This is no different than the other all-time great with a decent personality.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quaint

I'm not really sure what you're getting with this in terms of Lidstrom's ranking all-time. Coaches and teammates are supposed to work together and strive to improve and win. If you are trying to imply that hockey hasn't evolved and grown over the years with this then you are really grasping.

Lidstrom has already passed on "his legacy" and will continue to do so next season. His coach and teammates call him "the perfect human" because of his demeanor both off and on the ice and the whole team looks up to him and tries to emulate him. It's a benefit to the Red Wings organization to keep him around as long as possible to help pass on those traits he has to the next generation. This is no different than the other all-time great with a decent personality.

Quaint.Actually I have shown very clearly how hockey has evolved over the years. The lineage of legacies flowing thru Lidstrom being the latest such effort.

I'll do another one that completely bypasses Lidstrom.

Larry Robinson learned the craft under Scotty Bowman and Claude Ruel with help from Al MacNeil,techniques flowing from Doug Harvey supported on the ice by Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Jacques Laperriere. As a veteran Larry Robinson passed on his legacy to Petr Svoboda, Eric Desjardins, Chris Chelios, Rob Blake,. Later as a coach with the Devils, asst&head this continued to thru the various dmen that the Devils had.Stevens, Scott N, etc. You could see elements that Robinson brought to their game.

Do the same for Lidstrom instead of talking in vague generalities.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom's teams needed him to be that # 1 defenseman who not only shut down the opposition's best but also was their top offensive guy on the point. Sure he generally had more help than Bourque but you can't punish Lidstrom simply because he was surrounded by other great players. You can't assume Bourque would be as successful in the same situation because it never happened. Lidstrom DID win multiple Cups and Norris' and he was a huge part of any success the Red Wings have had so we must look at what did happen.

Ok, I won't punish Lidstrom for being on much better teams year after year. I will simply give Bourque more credit for accomplishing what he did on mostly mediocre and worse teams year after year

Bourque was not as good defensively as Lidstrom IMO, either positionally or as a shutdown guy. He got beat one on one far more than Lidstrom did when each were in their primes. I don't see being physical as giving another dman an edge when comparing another defender to Lidstrom. Like Gretzky, his play did not require physicality to be effective.

While I do agree that Lidstrom was better than Bourque from a purely defensive standpoint, the gap is not very much and certainly not to the degree that you're implying.
Saying Bourque got beat FAR MORE than Lidstrom one on one is a pretty ridiculous exaggeration.
Bourque would get caught pushing the offense from time to time but he DID NOT get beat one on one very often what so ever.
If at any time during this thread that you said something that might incline me to believe you didn't actually see that much of Bourque, it was right here.

Just because everyone will always remember Mario making Ray look like a pylon on that now famous goal. That doesn't mean a damned thing, Mario could make anyone look silly.
Lidstrom is prolly lucky that Mario played in the East and didn't face him often because if he did, there would most likely be a very similar video floating around of Mario doing it to Lidstrom as well.
That was Mario, you may even stop him 4 times out of 5 but man did he make you look bad that 5th time.
By far, the most dangerous man one on one in the History of the game.

 

[danincanada]

What???

We don't have to remove anybody. The entire point is that the expansion of the league doesn't necessarily equate to more top end talent and top end talent is what matters in this discussion.

Harvey played in an era where there were 36 defensemen at the NHL level. Yeah, there were not many foreign player sin the league but I would venture to say that the 36 best defensemen in Canada back then were as talented as the 180 best now, no matter where they come from.

Even if you somehow disagree with that and feel that there were a bushel full of great hidden defensemen overseas during Harvey's era, top end talent is what is relevant. Put the 5 best defenseman of Harvey's era up against today's 5 best and Harvey clearly had stiffer competition for Norris trophies.

This old post of mine had nothing to do with expansion of the NHL and everything to do with expansion of the talent pool from which the NHL can receive the best players in hockey.

With Europe and the US building up their hockey programs we don't only rely on Canadian hockey players anymore and therefore there are not only more elite players but a greater level of talent all the way through the NHL. There is more talent striving to play in the league than ever before and this makes the competition level higher everywhere. This would also affect how we look at the best players of today because we can only really compare them directly with their own peers so if their peers are also playing at an extremely high level then the top guys won't look as impressive.

You have absolutely no proof of the bolded part. Why do you assume that Harvey's competition was tougher than today when the talent pool from which those players rose above was so much more shallow? Logic would say the opposite is likely true and the field is deeper and better today because we can draw players from the developmental systems in Europe, Russia, the US and Canada with a larger population. Not just a Canada of 21,000,000 people.

 

[danincanada]

Quaint.Actually I have shown very clearly how hockey has evolved over the years. The lineage of legacies flowing thru Lidstrom being the latest such effort.

I'll do another one that completely bypasses Lidstrom.

Larry Robinson learned the craft under Scotty Bowman and Claude Ruel with help from Al MacNeil,techniques flowing from Doug Harvey supported on the ice by Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Jacques Laperriere. As a veteran Larry Robinson passed on his legacy to Petr Svoboda, Eric Desjardins, Chris Chelios, Rob Blake,. Later as a coach with the Devils, asst&head this continued to thru the various dmen that the Devils had.Stevens, Scott N, etc. You could see elements that Robinson brought to their game.

Do the same for Lidstrom instead of talking in vague generalities.

This is all fun but doing this does not prove anything in this debate. Just because there is a link all the way back to whoever doesn't mean they were a better defenseman than Lidstrom. I can respect players for helping the sport evolve and grow but each player must find his own way in the end anyways. You can give McCrimmon credit for helping Lidstrom develop but that is all.

Maybe this means something to you but it doesn't to me. If people are going to rank all-time defenseman or anything else it should be about who was actually the best athlete and player. To me, players don't get bonus points for being first.

 

[danincanada]

While I do agree that Lidstrom was better than Bourque from a purely defensive standpoint, the gap is not very much and certainly not to the degree that you're implying.
Saying Bourque got beat FAR MORE than Lidstrom one on one is a pretty ridiculous exaggeration.
Bourque would get caught pushing the offense from time to time but he DID NOT get beat one on one very often what so ever.If at any time during this thread that you said something that might incline me to believe you didn't actually see that much of Bourque, it was right here.

Just because everyone will always remember Mario making Ray look like a pylon on that now famous goal. That doesn't mean a damned thing, Mario could make anyone look silly.
Lidstrom is prolly lucky that Mario played in the East and didn't face him often because if he did, there would most likely be a very similar video floating around of Mario doing it to Lidstrom as well.
That was Mario, you may even stop him 4 times out of 5 but man did he make you look bad that 5th time.
By far, the most dangerous man one on one in the History of the game.

It wasn't just Mario, the May Day goal is an example of Bourque not looking like an elite defensive player and that ended his teams season. I've never seen Lidstrom look so bad trying to defend a rush in a huge game. Bourque completely took himself out of the play, didn't even harass May and left Moog on his own. Bourque also looked terrible (similar to the May Day goal) early in his career on a Butch Goring rush and that was a playoff game too. Realisitically, he did get beat one on one much more often than Lidstrom. Some may have been due to trying to force offense but I've seen a few that were simply from being beaten one on one. Overall Bourque was elite defensively but I see Lidstrom as being on another level in that respect.

I wish a prime Lidstrom and prime Mario got to face off in a playoff series. To me that would be the ultimate showdown between a defenseman and forward. I think Lidstrom would be better suited than Bourque to deal with Mario's reach and stick skills.

 

[CarlWinslow]

This old post of mine had nothing to do with expansion of the NHL and everything to do with expansion of the talent pool from which the NHL can receive the best players in hockey.

With Europe and the US building up their hockey programs we don't only rely on Canadian hockey players anymore and therefore there are not only more elite players but a greater level of talent all the way through the NHL. There is more talent striving to play in the league than ever before and this makes the competition level higher everywhere. This would also affect how we look at the best players of today because we can only really compare them directly with their own peers so if their peers are also playing at an extremely high level then the top guys won't look as impressive.

You have absolutely no proof of the bolded part. Why do you assume that Harvey's competition was tougher than today when the talent pool from which those players rose above was so much more shallow? Logic would say the opposite is likely true and the field is deeper and better today because we can draw players from the developmental systems in Europe, Russia, the US and Canada with a larger population. Not just a Canada of 21,000,000 people.

I base my opinion on the knowledge that in both eras, the best defensemen on the planet were playing in the NHL and were therefore the competition of Harvey and Lidstrom respectively.

When I look at the list of players they faced, I feel as though the players Harvey faced were indisputably better than the players I saw Lidstrom face more recently. Certainly you may disagree in which case we hold fundamentally opposite views on this.

 

[danincanada]

I base my opinion on the knowledge that in both eras, the best defensemen on the planet were playing in the NHL and were therefore the competition of Harvey and Lidstrom respectively.

When I look at the list of players they faced, I feel as though the players Harvey faced were indisputably better than the players I saw Lidstrom face more recently. Certainly you may disagree in which case we hold fundamentally opposite views on this.

If you feel Harvey had tougher competition than Lidstrom then what you are really saying is that Canada produced more elite defenseman in the 50's from 21,000,000 people than Canada has today from 35,000,000 people plus the hockey programs in Europe, Russian and the US. I see that as being hard to believe and very improbable.

 

[JazzRockford]

There were times when Raymond Bourque in his 30s outplayed Nicklas Lidström in his 20s. Does it matter that much though? The early 1990s was still a part of Bourque's prime, while Lidström was far away from his. With two players as close as this it's rather obvious who will win when comparing one player's prime years to another's pre- or post-prime years.

This thread was originally about Harvey vs Lidström. It has evolved to be about the top 2-5 defenceman in general and Bourque vs Lidström in particular. Therefore, I'm going to bring up this: what about Shore? Better than Ray and Nick? I, for one, don't see that. Yes, winning a Hart is amazing, winning four is unbelievable. But it happened in an era with less competition and more consideration giving to d-man regarding the Hart. Send out Lidström - or, even better, Bourque - with an honest shot to win the Hart and remove guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, maybe Jagr for a year. They wouldn't get 4 MVP titles, but be a lot closer to the 'best in the game'-status Shore had.

And that's just a discussion about peak. Factoring longveity and the gap between Lidström/Bourque and Shore gets bigger.

 

[WayneBruce]

It is a different sport today really. Today every player is elite and it is much harder to step up and being better than the rest today than it was 50 years ago. Both their careers have been amazing, but Lidstrom has been the better player of the 2

 

[Canadiens1958]

Flawed Reasoning

If you feel Harvey had tougher competition than Lidstrom then what you are really saying is that Canada produced more elite defenseman in the 50's from 21,000,000 people than Canada has today from 35,000,000 people plus the hockey programs in Europe, Russian and the US. I see that as being hard to believe and very improbable.

Typical flawed reasoning continues. Already shown to be wrong on the hockey level when comparing states and provinces, Minnesota vs Quebec then and know which you simply ignore.

If we look at the distribution of elite athletes relative to era then the issue id defined more clearly. Doug Harvey is known today as a great hockey player - defenseman. But hockey was his third best sport behind football and baseball. However hockey provide the quickest opportunity to athletic and financial success so .........

In the fifties Canada was producing mainly hockey players at the elite athlete level. A few CFL calibre players and mainly participation level athletes at the amateur level with gold medal level athletes few and far between.

Today Canada is producing world class athletes, regularly in all four major North American sports NHL/NFL/MLB/NBA plus numerous gold medal Olympic Summer and Winter athletes Premier division soccer players, and so forth. This comes at a cost to hockey since athletic youngsters have a wide option of sports to choose from. This phenomena is also true in the USA. Not as true in other countries where the lag in certain sports is interesting. Few if any NBA/NFL/MLB athletes if any so the draw from other sports is minimized.

Again, spare us the bogus population based argument since it only illustrates the superficiality in your position.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It wasn't just Mario, the May Day goal is an example of Bourque not looking like an elite defensive player and that ended his teams season. I've never seen Lidstrom look so bad trying to defend a rush in a huge game. Bourque completely took himself out of the play, didn't even harass May and left Moog on his own. Bourque also looked terrible (similar to the May Day goal) early in his career on a Butch Goring rush and that was a playoff game too. Realisitically, he did get beat one on one much more often than Lidstrom. Some may have been due to trying to force offense but I've seen a few that were simply from being beaten one on one. Overall Bourque was elite defensively but I see Lidstrom as being on another level in that respect.

In your opinion, that's fine but lets not forget that Lidstrom has benefited defensively by playing the majority of his career in an NHL, that employs vastly superior team defensive scheme's and systems compared to what Bourque played the majority of his career under.
You CAN NOT rip on Bourque's offense, citing that he played in a more offensive NHL without doing exactly the same for Lidstrom's defense, while playing in a more defensive league.
That, in every sense of the word, is complete bull****!

I wish a prime Lidstrom and prime Mario got to face off in a playoff series. To me that would be the ultimate showdown between a defenseman and forward. I think Lidstrom would be better suited than Bourque to deal with Mario's reach and stick skills.

Dream on buddy! Nobody was suited to have a one on one showdown with Mario. You contained him if you were lucky but you never stopped him and you did it as a team or you didn't do it at all!
Just because Lidstrom was able to out finesse Lindros's power, he was NOT going out finesse Mario.
Whole different animal there my friend and if Detroit's coaches were stupid enough to believe that they could shut down Mario with just one player, even if that player is Lidstrom...well...enjoy your handshakes after a rather short series before you board the plane to head home and contemplate your elimination from the Playoffs