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

[RabbinsDuck]

Plus/minus goes both ways. One could argue that Bourque has a better plus/minus despite playing on teams with significantly worse plus/minus overall:

Bourque +528; his teams were +736 overall*. Lidstrom was +429; his teams were +1,217. These numbers would suggest that Bourque was both better and more important to his team.

Or that Bourque's team was worse. I don't really disagree with anything you say here, but I just do not put a whole lot of stock in +/- (though more than 0), but I know a lot do.

My issues is with people (this isn't directed at you specifically) who claim that Bourque's apparent offensive advantage is primarily era-driven, yet they refuse to acknowledge that Lidstrom's apparent defensive advantage is also era-dependent.

By my calculations, the NHL averaged 6.86 gpg during Bourque's career and 5.79 gpg during Lidstrom's**. Thus, Bourque played in an era with about 18.5% more offense per game.

Bourque scored 0.98 points per game; Lidstrom scored 0.74 ppg. A superficial look suggests that Bourque scored 32% more than Lidstrom per game, but this is wrong. Adjusted for era, Bourque scored about 0.83 ppg, which is an 12% advantage. Based on seeing them play and understanding how the NHL has changed over the past three decades, I'm comfortable saying that Bourque was about 12% better than Lidstrom offensively. This type of analysis isn't controversial.

Defensively, Bourque was on the ice for 0.90 even-strength goals per game (which I'll simply call "GPG" for simplicity). Lidstrom was on the ice for 0.76 gpg. A superficial glance suggests that Lidstrom was on the ice for 20% fewer goals per game than Bourque. However, in order to be consistent, we need to apply the same era adjustment we did for the offense. Adjusted for era, Bourque was on the ice for 0.76 gpg, which is 1% more than Lidstrom***.

Before we consider ice time and teammates, it appears that, adjusted for era, Bourque was only very slightly worse than Lidstrom defensively. These calculations are consistent with my intuition - Bourque was better offensively, Lidstrom was better defensively by a small margin and, overall, Bourque is slightly ahead.

I think that Bourque and Lidstrom are much more similar than most people realize, and the notion that Bourque was vastly superior offensively and Lidstrom was clearly better defensively are based on people get confused by era effects.

====

* I'm looking at the total GF and GA - if someone has GF and GA with PP goals removed, please post. For Lidstrom I've used the Red Wings; for Bourque I've used the Bruins from 1980 to 2000, and the Avalanche for 2001 (thus I've ignored the impact of the late-season trade in 2000).

** This entire section excludes 2010-11 as I don't have the necessary data.

*** Calculations have been rounded so if you re-perform you may encounter minor rounding differences.

I'm far more comfortable with the direct validity of your take on offensive play than I am the defensive play, but I can agree on the results = Bourque's offensive advantage is slightly larger than Lidstrom's defensive advantage. IMO, that is true.

While Norris voters typically value offense more, I have always felt defense should be valued more from a defenseman (like I value offense more from a forward).

But I agree with the census that even with a very liberal use of adjusted stats, Bourque is clearly better offensively. I just think Lidstrom was clearly better defensively (and in the playoffs) albeit by a smaller degree of separation.

 

[seventieslord]

don't forget that adjusted stats also fail to account for who was really the engine of their team's offense. There's 70 points as the focal point, and then there's 70 points as a contributor who's 2nd-3rd on the team in scoring. I'm not saying Bourque or Lidstrom was always one or the other, but Bourque was certainly the focal point more often. In a case where their adjusted stats were similar, I'd still take Bourque offensively. But they're not anyway, so that's moot.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Using stats, sure. Though proponents of +/- could use Lidstrom's leading all contemporaries by a greater margin than Bourque, who was not even first. I think team has a lot to do with it but wouldn't completely dismiss it.

It's fair to say Lidstrom is better defensively simply because most have watched both of them, and even if you haven't Bourque was usually considered "among" the top defensive players in his era, while Lidstrom was considered "the" defensive player of his era. It's not just Red Wing homers that describe Lidstrom's defensive play as "perfect".

Using plus/minus in comparison to teammates is somewhat useful.

Lidstrom led the Wings in plus/minus for the first time in his 11th season.

Bourque led the Bruins in plus/minus 4 of his first 5 years. Consider he came into the NHL at 19 and played for a pretty good team. As a rookie, his +52 was significantly higher than the +37 that was next. In his 5th season he was +51, with +27 being second on the team.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think you agree that ultimately PPG is not as important as actual results (at least you do in other debates).

Right, we're on the same page there. I'm just saying that, given that Bourque was out-producing Lidstrom at the point he got injured, it's more likely that the Norris voting is indicative of Bourque missing too many games to have his entire season rated highly enough to compare with Lidstrom's, and not that Lidstrom's actual on-ice performance was trumping Bourque at that point in their respective careers.

1997 is a year where Bourque is helped by PPG, but off the top of my head, he is hurt by it as well - 2001 comes to mind - his own linemate, Blake, scored more goals and the same points in like 20 less games, but Bourque was the Norris runner-up and clearly benefited from it. As he should, IMO.

Pretty much everyone is injury-prone when it comes to a comparison with Lidstrom. Penalty-taking machines too.

Well, he was hurt by a lot of things by 2001. Age, etc. He did finally retire that year, after all. On the PIM topic, I think it's amazing that Bourque, as short as he was and as relied on as he was for heavy minutes every single year, doesn't get a lot of credit for playing a very smothering and punishing, yet disciplined style of D despite topping 80 PIM only twice in his career. In fact, he only averaged as much as a minor penalty every two games in 5 of his 19 seasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

don't forget that adjusted stats also fail to account for who was really the engine of their team's offense. There's 70 points as the focal point, and then there's 70 points as a contributor who's 2nd-3rd on the team in scoring. I'm not saying Bourque or Lidstrom was always one or the other, but Bourque was certainly the focal point more often. In a case where their adjusted stats were similar, I'd still take Bourque offensively. But they're not anyway, so that's moot.

they also fail to account for the different style of play in the 1980s, when defensemen were much more involved in leading the attack and #1 defensemen put up much better stats in relation to forwards than they do now.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Using plus/minus in comparison to teammates is somewhat useful.

Lidstrom led the Wings in plus/minus for the first time in his 11th season.

Bourque led the Bruins in plus/minus 4 of his first 5 years. Consider he came into the NHL at 19 and played for a pretty good team. As a rookie, his +52 was significantly higher than the +37 that was next. In his 5th season he was +51, with +27 being second on the team.

Bourque was significantly better than all his teammates. Neely was good, but he was not Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk (almost included Zetterberg there, which might be a mistake) great. Bourque most likely played more minutes per game on average than Lidstrom - both because of era and differences in team strength.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bourque was significantly better than all his teammates. Neely was good, but he was not Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk (almost included Zetterberg there, which might be a mistake) great. Bourque most likely played more minutes per game on average than Lidstrom - both because of era and differences in team strength.

Exactly.

That's the point.

He had to carry his team, even as a 19 year old.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Exactly.

That's the point.

He had to carry his team, even as a 19 year old.

So we're giving Bourque some credit for being "the guy" and we're also giving him extra credit for not playing on a team that was good enough to do anything until he wasn't "the guy"?

But we take away from Lidstrom because his team has always been strong - coincidentally - pretty much since he has been there. Even though he has won as "the guy".

I have troubling picking one over the other at this point, myself. I think the correct answer is to pick the one that suits the rest of the team you are putting them on.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

So we're giving Bourque some credit for being "the guy" and we're also giving him extra credit for not playing on a team that was good enough to do anything until he wasn't "the guy"?

But we take away from Lidstrom because his team has always been strong - coincidentally - pretty much since he has been there. Even though he has won as "the guy".

That's an overly distilled version of many, many carefully explained opinions complete with more context and support than you're giving credit for, but yeah, kinda. If we want to overly distill it in a slightly different way, Bourque was THE guy, Lidstrom was A guy. Unless, of course, Lidstrom's individual contribution outweighed that of two of the best two-way forwards ever on "both occasions" (Yzerman/Fedorov at one point, Datsyuk/Zetterberg at another)... remembering that the game is played in 5 man units, of course, all of whom play important roles in keeping the puck out of their own net.

 

[danincanada]

Let's get a few things right. Hockey is not a one-on-one game. Also the notion that Lidstrom shut down Lindros in the 1997 finals is a rather superficial or limited understanding of what happened.

Lidstrom playing a defensive position against Eric Lindros during the 1997 finals was supported by three forward lines led by three elite centers - Fedorov and Larianov both LHS and Yzerman a RHS. All three had different styles and skills. So home or away Bowman
could create match-ups that gave Lindros different looks and styles that he would try to adjust to instead of simply playing his game.

Hockey itself is not a one on one game but within the game of hockey there are one on one battles constantly taking place and one of the reasons why coaches match lines and players is to try to benefit from a player who can win these battles consistently against the others teams best.

The only thing you have right regarding the '97 finals is that Bowman didn't pick one forward or forward line to go against Lindros. He did, however, consistently put Lidstrom and Murphy on the ice against him and they were the biggest reason for nullifying Lindros in that series. Lidstrom was used as a shut down defenseman in that situation and Murphy obviously played great too.

I think Draper probably went up against Lindros more than Larionov's line would and I believe this is how Bowman had his forward lines set up for that finals and most of those playoffs:

Sandstrom Yzerman McCarty
Kozlov Fedorov Brown
Shanahan Larionov Lapointe
Maltby Draper Kocur

Mario Lemieux. Rarely played against Lidstrom since the east and west teams did not play against each other ofeten plus Lemieux retired after the 1996-97 season. Interestingly during the 1995-96 and 1996-97 season Mario Lemieux and the Penguins played four games afainst the Rd Wings, winning one while losing three. Mario Lemieux had 3G and 2A., hardly evidence that the Red Wings could
shut down Lemieux let alone that Lidstrom could have such an effect. Main difference between Lemieux and Lindros was that Lemieux did not care about the opposition he was going to impose his game.

You're right, Lidstrom and Lemieux never really got to play against each other a lot, especially when each were at their best. Knowing Mario only got 5 points in 4 games against the Red Wings then, with his team going 1-3, helps my argument more than yours, albiet with a small sample size.

Lemieux is the most dangerous offensive player I have ever witnessed so I realize there is a difference between him and Lindros. My only point this whole time is that if I want to try to stop or slow down Mario in a playoff series, I use Lidstrom over Bourque.

Giving Lidstrom credit for shutting down Crosby is a stretch. Crosby plays the whole ice. Get the puck deep and set-up a strong forecheck against the Penguins and you will have success. So the forwars, Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the keys. As long as the forwards do their job Lidstrom's responsibilities are simplified.

In the Crosby examples Babcock did assign Zetterberg to check Crosby as well but whenever possible he also wanted Lidstrom on the ice. This approach was very successful both years as Crosby never really broke free.

We have witnessed those same shutdown strengths from Lidstrom since '97 and I don't think there is much of an argument that he excelled in this role, no matter how many great forwards he played with. If you want to argue about the importance of having Lidstrom on the ice against those elite players then maybe you should talk to Scotty Bowman or Mike Babcock because they seem to agree that it's a good idea.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Shutdown Strengths

Hockey itself is not a one on one game but within the game of hockey there are one on one battles constantly taking place and one of the reasons why coaches match lines and players is to try to benefit from a player who can win these battles consistently against the others teams best.

The only thing you have right regarding the '97 finals is that Bowman didn't pick one forward or forward line to go against Lindros. He did, however, consistently put Lidstrom and Murphy on the ice against him and they were the biggest reason for nullifying Lindros in that series. Lidstrom was used as a shut down defenseman in that situation and Murphy obviously played great too.

I think Draper probably went up against Lindros more than Larionov's line would and I believe this is how Bowman had his forward lines set up for that finals and most of those playoffs:

Sandstrom Yzerman McCarty
Kozlov Fedorov Brown
Shanahan Larionov Lapointe
Maltby Draper Kocur



You're right, Lidstrom and Lemieux never really got to play against each other a lot, especially when each were at their best. Knowing Mario only got 5 points in 4 games against the Red Wings then, with his team going 1-3, helps my argument more than yours, albiet with a small sample size.

Lemieux is the most dangerous offensive player I have ever witnessed so I realize there is a difference between him and Lindros. My only point this whole time is that if I want to try to stop or slow down Mario in a playoff series, I use Lidstrom over Bourque.



In the Crosby examples Babcock did assign Zetterberg to check Crosby as well but whenever possible he also wanted Lidstrom on the ice. This approach was very successful both years as Crosby never really broke free.

We have witnessed those same shutdown strengths from Lidstrom since '97 and I don't think there is much of an argument that he excelled in this role, no matter how many great forwards he played with. If you want to argue about the importance of having Lidstrom on the ice against those elite players then maybe you should talk to Scotty Bowman or Mike Babcock because they seem to agree that it's a good idea.

Nice try at spin doctoring the discussion.

Does your definition of since 1997 include 1999 and 2000 when the Red Wings and Lidstrom could not shutdown Peter Forsberg and the AVS, 1999 blowing a 2-0 game lead with home ice advantage the rest of the series.2001 vs the Kings, again 2-0 lead evaporated into a 4 - 2 loss, Palffy had an excellent series, or further playoff loses to underdog,Anaheim, Calgary and Edmonton teams. After all if Lidstrom can hypothetically shutdown the great Mario Lemieux then what happened against mere mortals.

Conversely looking at Doug Harvey during the playoffs, he was more than able to participate in a shutdown role. Howe, Hull, Bathgate, Frank Mahovlich were reduced in effectiveness during the playoffs against Harvey led teams including his time with the Rangers.1968 with the expansion St.Louis Blues he was a key part of the effort that held the powerhouse Canadiens to four one goal victories.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Excellent point.

These players are not playing in a vacuum.

Is Lidstrom better than Bourque defensively? I don't know for sure.

Is Lidstrom, Kronwall, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Cleary

better than

Bourque, Sweeney, Oates, Neely, Donato defensively? Yes, for sure.

You hit the nail on the head here

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Nice try at spin doctoring the discussion.

Does your definition of since 1997 include 1999 and 2000 when the Red Wings and Lidstrom could not shutdown Peter Forsberg and the AVS, 1999 blowing a 2-0 game lead with home ice advantage the rest of the series.2001 vs the Kings, again 2-0 lead evaporated into a 4 - 2 loss, Palffy had an excellent series, or further playoff loses to underdog,Anaheim, Calgary and Edmonton teams. After all if Lidstrom can hypothetically shutdown the great Mario Lemieux then what happened against mere mortals.

Conversely looking at Doug Harvey during the playoffs, he was more than able to participate in a shutdown role. Howe, Hull, Bathgate, Frank Mahovlich were reduced in effectiveness during the playoffs against Harvey led teams including his time with the Rangers.1968 with the expansion St.Louis Blues he was a key part of the effort that held the powerhouse Canadiens to four one goal victories.

did you just blame Lidstrom for the Red Wings not winning 4 in a row?

 

[Rhiessan71]

did you just blame Lidstrom for the Red Wings not winning 4 in a row?

Not exactly, I think he's just pointing out that in giving Lidstrom so much credit in their wins, that it's appropriate to heap in some of the blame in their losses.

 

[danincanada]

Nice try at spin doctoring the discussion.

Does your definition of since 1997 include 1999 and 2000 when the Red Wings and Lidstrom could not shutdown Peter Forsberg and the AVS, 1999 blowing a 2-0 game lead with home ice advantage the rest of the series.2001 vs the Kings, again 2-0 lead evaporated into a 4 - 2 loss, Palffy had an excellent series, or further playoff loses to underdog,Anaheim, Calgary and Edmonton teams. After all if Lidstrom can hypothetically shutdown the great Mario Lemieux then what happened against mere mortals.

You can't place all the blame on Lidstrom for the Red Wings not winning the Cup every season just like you can't give him all the credit for the years Detroit did win. The point is that the Red Wings have been extremely successful the past 14 years while using Lidstrom as their shutdown defenseman and both Bowman and Babcock realized how they could use him defensively. Do you not agree with this?

That '03 series had little to do with allowing goals and more to do with Giguere putting on one of the most impressive goaltending performances we have ever seen. The problem was the Red Wings couldn't score goals. Unless you expected the Red Wings to win 3 Cups in a row you can't be too hard on them for losing in '99. The only series where I don't think Lidstrom played great was '06 against the Oilers and he rebounded from that in '07 with an amazing playoff run. In the other series you mentioned he did his part and it was usually weak goaltending and/or injuries that hurt the team.

I never said Lidstrom would definitely shut down Lemieux so the bolded part is just a lame attempt to put words in my mouth.

Conversely looking at Doug Harvey during the playoffs, he was more than able to participate in a shutdown role. Howe, Hull, Bathgate, Frank Mahovlich were reduced in effectiveness during the playoffs against Harvey led teams including his time with the Rangers.1968 with the expansion St.Louis Blues he was a key part of the effort that held the powerhouse Canadiens to four one goal victories.

Harvey was used in a similar role to Lidstrom - great. The problem with comparing the two is that Harvey only played against other Canadian players and not the WORLD's best like Lidstrom has. He never faced someone as physically imposing as Lindros either.

Lidstrom faced a larger array of talents and with the growth of hockey worldwide I'd venture to say he faced better players overall than Harvey. I know you won't agree with this statement but you probably also think that the NHL didn't instantly improve in terms of talent as a league when the Russians started coming over. If you agree with this then your whole argument goes with it. Instead you will forever deny that having other countries produce elite hockey players impacts how strong the NHL is in terms of talent, both overall and at the elite level.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not exactly, I think he's just pointing out that in giving Lidstrom so much credit in their wins, that it's appropriate to heap in some of the blame in their losses.

So blame Lidstrom for not making the most successful team of the last 20 years even more successful? Seems like an inpossibly high standard to me. Might as well blame Harvey for the Canadiens losing in the 1955 playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

did you just blame Lidstrom for the Red Wings not winning 4 in a row?

No. Just stated that Lidstrom did not have the proported shutdown effect in other situations.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You can't place all the blame on Lidstrom for the Red Wings not winning the Cup every season just like you can't give him all the credit for the years Detroit did win. The point is that the Red Wings have been extremely successful the past 14 years while using Lidstrom as their shutdown defenseman and both Bowman and Babcock realized how they could use him defensively. Do you not agree with this?

That '03 series had little to do with allowing goals and more to do with Giguere putting on one of the most impressive goaltending performances we have ever seen. The problem was the Red Wings couldn't score goals. Unless you expected the Red Wings to win 3 Cups in a row you can't be too hard on them for losing in '99. The only series where I don't think Lidstrom played great was '06 against the Oilers and he rebounded from that in '07 with an amazing playoff run. In the other series you mentioned he did his part and it was usually weak goaltending and/or injuries that hurt the team.

I never said Lidstrom would definitely shut down Lemieux so the bolded part is just a lame attempt to put words in my mouth.



Harvey was used in a similar role to Lidstrom - great. The problem with comparing the two is that Harvey only played against other Canadian players and not the WORLD's best like Lidstrom has. He never faced someone as physically imposing as Lindros either.

Lidstrom faced a larger array of talents and with the growth of hockey worldwide I'd venture to say he faced better players overall than Harvey. I know you won't agree with this statement but you probably also think that the NHL didn't instantly improve in terms of talent as a league when the Russians started coming over. If you agree with this then your whole argument goes with it. Instead you will forever deny that having other countries produce elite hockey players impacts how strong the NHL is in terms of talent, both overall and at the elite level.

iIf this thread is really devolving into "Lidstrom is better because he plays today against Europeans," vs "Harvey is better because he played back when there were dyansties," then it should pobably be merges with the "all en-compassing players of today vs players of yesterday" thread

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No. Just stated that Lidstrom did not have the proported shutdown effect in other situations.

Name a single defenseman who played after the game opened up in the 1970s, who shut down every opponent he ever faced.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So

You can't place all the blame on Lidstrom for the Red Wings not winning the Cup every season just like you can't give him all the credit for the years Detroit did win. The point is that the Red Wings have been extremely successful the past 14 years while using Lidstrom as their shutdown defenseman and both Bowman and Babcock realized how they could use him defensively. Do you not agree with this?

That '03 series had little to do with allowing goals and more to do with Giguere putting on one of the most impressive goaltending performances we have ever seen. The problem was the Red Wings couldn't score goals. Unless you expected the Red Wings to win 3 Cups in a row you can't be too hard on them for losing in '99. The only series where I don't think Lidstrom played great was '06 against the Oilers and he rebounded from that in '07 with an amazing playoff run. In the other series you mentioned he did his part and it was usually weak goaltending and/or injuries that hurt the team.

I never said Lidstrom would definitely shut down Lemieux so the bolded part is just a lame attempt to put words in my mouth.



Harvey was used in a similar role to Lidstrom - great. The problem with comparing the two is that Harvey only played against other Canadian players and not the WORLD's best like Lidstrom has. He never faced someone as physically imposing as Lindros either.

Lidstrom faced a larger array of talents and with the growth of hockey worldwide I'd venture to say he faced better players overall than Harvey. I know you won't agree with this statement but you probably also think that the NHL didn't instantly improve in terms of talent as a league when the Russians started coming over. If you agree with this then your whole argument goes with it. Instead you will forever deny that having other countries produce elite hockey players impacts how strong the NHL is in terms of talent, both overall and at the elite level.

Same Bowman who optimized an aging Harvey with St.Louis in 1968,. Same Babcock who swept a Lidstrom led team while coaching Anaheim.

Lidstrom did it once against Lindros without a rematch. Harvey did it a few times against Howe who like Lindros was Canadian and one of the toughest competitors of all time.Also a much better player than Lindros .Eric Lindros would not even rank in top 100 of all time. Harvey did it against Bobby Hull, against Bobby Orr players that Europeans do not compare to. He did it against Frank Mahovlich even as a player-coach with a weak NY Ranger team.

Lidstrom needed great coaching to perform - Bowman and Babcock, What did he do with other coaches like Dave Lewis ?

Harvey did it with great coaches - Blake and Bowman the good Dick Irvin Sr, and himself coaching the team while playing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Strange

Name a single defenseman who played after the game opened up in the 1970s, who shut down every opponent he ever faced.

But Lidstrom is being discussed in the context of the dead puck era while Harvey is being discussed in the context of the 1950's and 1960's.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So blame Lidstrom for not making the most successful team of the last 20 years even more successful? Seems like an inpossibly high standard to me. Might as well blame Harvey for the Canadiens losing in the 1955 playoffs.

But Lidstrom is being portrayed in an impossibly high standard.
One of the biggest arguments against Lidstrom is the strength of his teams compared to Bourque's.
When the Lidstrom backers choose to say that Lidstrom was a huge factor in Detroit's wins, he must also be a huge factor in their losses.

You don't get to choose that the focus should only be on Lidstrom when they win. Fair is fair.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But Lidstrom is being discussed in the context of the dead puck era while Harvey is being discussed in the context of the 1950's and 1960's.

Actually, you continue to judge Lidstrom by 50s and 60s standards. You're specifically holding Lidstrom to task for every time his team lost, ignoring the fact that his team was the most successful of the dead puck era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But Lidstrom is being portrayed in an impossibly high standard.
One of the biggest arguments against Lidstrom is the strength of his teams compared to Bourque's.
When the Lidstrom backers choose to say that Lidstrom was a huge factor in Detroit's wins, he must also be a huge factor in their losses.

You don't get to choose that the focus should only be on Lidstrom when they win. Fair is fair.

Just so long as we are consistent and call Harvey a huge factor in Montreal's losses in 1954, 1955, and 1961.

 

[danincanada]

Same Bowman who optimized an aging Harvey with St.Louis in 1968,. Same Babcock who swept a Lidstrom led team while coaching Anaheim.

Lidstrom did it once against Lindros without a rematch. Harvey did it a few times against Howe who like Lindros was Canadian and one of the toughest competitors of all time.Also a much better player than Lindros .Eric Lindros would not even rank in top 100 of all time. Harvey did it against Bobby Hull, against Bobby Orr players that Europeans do not compare to. He did it against Frank Mahovlich even as a player-coach with a weak NY Ranger team.

Lidstrom needed great coaching to perform - Bowman and Babcock, What did he do with other coaches like Dave Lewis ?

Harvey did it with great coaches - Blake and Bowman the good Dick Irvin Sr, and himself coaching the team while playing.

Lindros in '97 was at his very best and if injuries weren't a factor I think we can all agree he would have AT LEAST been a top 100 player all-time.

So Lidstrom was a great shutdown defenseman because he had two great coaches. Gottcha.

Here's what Bowman himself said in the Calgary Herald a little while ago. (I don't have a link but this was posted on this board not too long ago, as some may remember.)

"Pre-expansion, nobody was as good as Doug Harvey,'' says Scotty Bowman, who coached Harvey, Larry Robinson, Coffey and Lidstrom during his unparalleled career. "Then Orr came along in '66 and changed the game. But Nick . . . look at all the trophies. He's been at the top for so long."

"As to who's the best ever . . . it's tough to rate this guy here and that guy there. I will say I don't rate anyone AHEAD of Lidstrom, though.''

For interest sake, here is another article with Bowman comparing Harvey and Lidstrom.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nhl/post/_/id/2508/scotty-bowman-on-those-lidstrom-harvey-comparisons

Some of the Quotes from Bowman:

"It's hard to compare them in a way because they played in vastly different eras. I coached Harvey in St. Louis before Nick Lidstrom was born," Bowman told ESPN.com last week. "But the two most common denominators between those two was that it was very seldom either one got caught up ice. Their passing skills were so terrific. Their first pass.

"If you charted a hockey game and you wrote down where the puck went every time those two touched it, it usually went on another teammate's stick unless they were killing a penalty. Their positioning and that sixth sense to be aware of what's going on ... they made a lot of partners looked pretty good."

...

"Harvey always played against Gordie Howe, for example, which was real tough," Bowman said. "And with Nick, his plus-minus numbers are not padded. He's always drawn the best right winger of the other team. Harvey was the same way."

One final thought from Bowman on Lidstrom's offensive numbers throughout the years: "The thing I always said about Nick, for all the points he's had, his offense has been so good, but the thing that's always amazed me about him is that very, very seldom have I seen Nick caught up ice. Very seldom does he leave his partner alone."