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

[BraveCanadian]

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

Roger that.

Pretty heavy double standard showing here in any discussion regarding Lidstrom of late in my opinion.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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

For sure, just like Patrick Roy, perhaps the greatest playoff goalie of all-time, he still took the heat when his teams didn't win.

Fair is fair.

 

[Epsilon]

There is a similar quote like that from Chris Pronger (not exactly a guy known for being charitable towards his opponents), basically along the lines of "Orr's the best ever, and it's hard to rate guys like Shore that played so long ago, but Lidstrom is as good as anyone else."

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sure, whatever you say.

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.

Sure. Forsberg and Babcock and Dave Lewis were all 1950's and 1960's players.

The opposite is in fact true. Dave Lewis was a good coach just like Dick Irvin, Both suffered from the inability to fully control the team - Irvin especially could not control Maurice Richard. the difference was most striking after Toe Blake took over.

Coaching is a standard that goes back to the origins of hockey, either in the form of the captain/player coach , bench coach or coach supported by multiple assistants.

The Forsberg analogy goes back to Lidstrom's roots and indicates that a few Swedish hockey people may have known how to play against him.

Doug Harvey took every loss personally while sharing every victory with team mates.

The Bowman comments are most revealing when he talks about the Howe Harvey confrontations which lasted during Doug Harvey entire career , some seasons extending to 21 games. Two all time top 1- players competing for over 250 games is more revealing than a brief 4 game confrontation like Lidstrom/Lindros in one playoff.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You still haven't named a defenseman in the last 40 years, who shut down every superstar forward he played against.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Your Point

You still haven't named a defenseman in the last 40 years, who shut down every superstar forward he played against.

First I never claimed that there was such a defenseman so what exactly is the purpose of your question? There were hypotheticals presented by others extending Lidstrom's prowess in this regard beyond the four game window against Lindros in 1997. Just had to offer a counter or two which was done.

As for the double standard, not only in this thread but covering many threads. Essentially posters are quick to embrace Scotty Bowman's views when they support a specific agenda.

Conversely when Scotty Bowman's views are expressed via the collective of the HHOF Selection Committee they are more often than not ridiculed, criticized, etc. by the same posters.

 

[DanZ]

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.

I don't get this argument. Yeah, Bourque was THE guy on the Bruins teams, but he never won a Cup while being THE guy. In fact, he never won a Cup until he was A guy on a Colorado team that was as stacked as any team Lidstrom has ever been on except maybe the '02 team.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

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.

It implicates Orr and Lemieux far more, if that is how you think.

 

[Gobo]

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.)



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:

Never seen that. Bowman basically says, Lidstrom > Harvey.

 

[Hanji]

As for the double standard, not only in this thread but covering many threads. Essentially posters are quick to embrace Scotty Bowman's views when they support a specific agenda.

Conversely when Scotty Bowman's views are expressed via the collective of the HHOF Selection Committee they are more often than not ridiculed, criticized, etc. by the same posters.

When has anybody ridiculed Bowman's personal views? That's quite different from ridiculing the HHOF Selection Committee as a whole.

I think Bowman's views on this topic are quite telling.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

I don't think I follow the point here.

My point was simply that Bourque carried the Bruins for virtually his whole career.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.?

The biggest reason that he went in the 3rd round is that the NHL was still behind in scouting terms in Sweden at that time. Sundin only went #1 due to his size and total package projection.

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.

Exactly

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.

So if Brendan Smith doesn't have a HHOF career we should look lesser at Lidstrom's legacy? What would Bourque's legacy be like following this faulty line of logic?

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.

Ya, all of these guys would have been nobodies, good thing they were in the right systems and legacies chain eh?

Sure coaching helps but talent does as well.

 

[OrrNumber4]

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

I don't know if this is true of Lidstrom.

He was older, but he struggled against Getzlaf, against Thornton. Forsberg seemed to have his number.

Lidstrom is an interesting player, because he is basically a guy who has had almost everything go for him perfectly from a developmental standpoint.

A Euro who left Europe at the right time.

Had a great coach throughout his career.

An organization very familiar with European.

Had great partners almost every years of his career, especially during his early years.

Played on a team full of leaders (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov) and playoff warriors, who he could learn from.

Played in a system that emphasized two-way play from the beginning, so Lidstrom could always rely on his forwards to do their jobs.

Played in a system that catered towards scoring from the blueline.

Played his entire career with a highly skilled forward corps that could capitalize on his passing.

Ultimately, what prevents me from putting Lidstrom over a guy like Harvey (someone I have not watched) and someone like Bourque, is that while Lidstrom was every bit as good of them defensively, he strikes me as a bit of a "compiler" offensively.

He's never been the kind of guy to deke through the opposition , score with a booming shot, or make some dazzling pass through two pairs of legs. Fundamentally, he is highly efficient and great at making small, simple plays.. He has, at his core, three *great* offensive skills:

1) Quickness.
2) His first pass
3) His accurate, rebound-creating shot.

All three of those skills were maximized because he played on Detroit. He always had players who could fight for space in front of the net and get those rebounds or screen that goalie. He's always had great forwards who would get in position to get his passes and wouldn't waste away his passes. And for the most part, he's always played with such great players that could give him some extra time on the backend.

I feel that if he were on any other team, he wouldn't have the stats he'd have today, even though he'd roughly be the same d-man. While guys like Potvin and Bourque (and Harvey, if others are to be believed) had skills that would translate elitely with any team....

I don't mean to make it sound like "Lidstrom was boring while Bourque and Potvin were flashy".

 

[seventieslord]

Tdmm was not trying to say lidstrom was perfect... he was saying no one is.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1992-93 Pro Scout Rating

The biggest reason that he went in the 3rd round is that the NHL was still behind in scouting terms in Sweden at that time. Sundin only went #1 due to his size and total package projection.



Exactly

So if Brendan Smith doesn't have a HHOF career we should look lesser at Lidstrom's legacy? What would Bourque's legacy be like following this faulty line of logic?




Ya, all of these guys would have been nobodies, good thing they were in the right systems and legacies chain eh?

Sure coaching helps but talent does as well.

Your position is not supported by the 1992-93 Pro Scout Ratings:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=939301

Young Europeans figure prominently in the ratings. Lidstrom who had a good 1991-92 placing well in the Calder is not even listed. So his draft position is understandable given the pro perspective of progress.

Ray Bourque throughout his career played with young dmen integrating them into the NHL from junior or US colleges.Kluzak, Sweeney, Wesley, McLaren, and others. That the Red Wings chose to go the veteran route may be part of a team philosophy or the realization that certain approaches would not work with the personel on hand.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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

I'm not sure what this (the specifics) means. This has nothing to do with R71's post, but didn't Montreal lose two of those Cup final series' in game 7, one of them in overtime? I guess I don't know why it's impossible that the better team just won, given how close those series' were.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't get this argument. Yeah, Bourque was THE guy on the Bruins teams, but he never won a Cup while being THE guy. In fact, he never won a Cup until he was A guy on a Colorado team that was as stacked as any team Lidstrom has ever been on except maybe the '02 team.

So I guess we can conclude that no one guy is good enough to win a Cup by himself? Wait... were you expecting me to argue otherwise? Doesn't affect our ability to compare the relative contributions/impact of individuals.

 

[Gobo]

I don't know if this is true of Lidstrom.

He was older, but he struggled against Getzlaf, against Thornton. Forsberg seemed to have his number.

Lidstrom is an interesting player, because he is basically a guy who has had almost everything go for him perfectly from a developmental standpoint.

A Euro who left Europe at the right time.

Had a great coach throughout his career.

An organization very familiar with European.

Had great partners almost every years of his career, especially during his early years.

Played on a team full of leaders (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov) and playoff warriors, who he could learn from.

Played in a system that emphasized two-way play from the beginning, so Lidstrom could always rely on his forwards to do their jobs.

Played in a system that catered towards scoring from the blueline.

Played his entire career with a highly skilled forward corps that could capitalize on his passing.

Ultimately, what prevents me from putting Lidstrom over a guy like Harvey (someone I have not watched) and someone like Bourque, is that while Lidstrom was every bit as good of them defensively, he strikes me as a bit of a "compiler" offensively.

He's never been the kind of guy to deke through the opposition , score with a booming shot, or make some dazzling pass through two pairs of legs. Fundamentally, he is highly efficient and great at making small, simple plays.. He has, at his core, three *great* offensive skills:

1) Quickness.
2) His first pass
3) His accurate, rebound-creating shot.

All three of those skills were maximized because he played on Detroit. He always had players who could fight for space in front of the net and get those rebounds or screen that goalie. He's always had great forwards who would get in position to get his passes and wouldn't waste away his passes. And for the most part, he's always played with such great players that could give him some extra time on the backend.

I feel that if he were on any other team, he wouldn't have the stats he'd have today, even though he'd roughly be the same d-man. While guys like Potvin and Bourque (and Harvey, if others are to be believed) had skills that would translate elitely with any team....

I don't mean to make it sound like "Lidstrom was boring while Bourque and Potvin were flashy".

But you can also say Detroit was like that because of Lidstrom. Detroit purposefully built around Lidstrom and that's why his skills have been maximized.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I'm not so sure about that. Superroyain10 has a lot of good points. There's no doubt Lidstrom has been in a tremendously favourable situation his entire career.

 

[danincanada]

Your position is not supported by the 1992-93 Pro Scout Ratings:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=939301

Young Europeans figure prominently in the ratings. Lidstrom who had a good 1991-92 placing well in the Calder is not even listed. So his draft position is understandable given the pro perspective of progress.

So his draft position was understandable because he isn't on this list, even though we all now know what he's done in his career? Seriously, you have to stop with these silly posts. You are looking for any way possible to degrade Lidstrom. Your agenda is far too obvious because you are reaching for anything you can possibly find.

Ray Bourque throughout his career played with young dmen integrating them into the NHL from junior or US colleges.Kluzak, Sweeney, Wesley, McLaren, and others. That the Red Wings chose to go the veteran route may be part of a team philosophy or the realization that certain approaches would not work with the personel on hand.

Aaron Ward, Anders Eriksson, Dmitri Bykov, Nicklas Kronwall, and Jonathan Ericsson - All young defenseman who played with the Red Wings. Bykov, who only played one season in North America and then decided to go back to Russia, was Lidstrom's partner for most of the 02-03 season. Lidstrom won the Norris that year.

 

[danincanada]

You make some good points s10 but I have to disagree with some of them.

He was older, but he struggled against Getzlaf, against Thornton. Forsberg seemed to have his number.

I would say Getzlaf and Thornton definitely challenged Lidstrom but it was Rafalski that they usually exposed.

Overall I think Lidstrom won the battle with Forsberg. Forsberg beat him a couple of times over the years but other than that Forsberg was usually taking advantage of other Red Wings players, not Lidstrom and when they did face Lidstrom more often than not won the battles they had against each other.

Played on a team full of leaders (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov) and playoff warriors, who he could learn from.

Those guys all learned from each other and Bowman helped teach them how to win as well. None of them won a cup until they did it together in '97. I get your point but other than Yzerman, who was the oldest and captain, I don't think you can say they took Lidstrom aside and gave him a veteran speech. You would have to call Lidstrom a playoff warrior as well.

He's never been the kind of guy to deke through the opposition , score with a booming shot, or make some dazzling pass through two pairs of legs. Fundamentally, he is highly efficient and great at making small, simple plays.. He has, at his core, three *great* offensive skills:

1) Quickness.
2) His first pass
3) His accurate, rebound-creating shot.

Lidstrom's one timer may not be in MacInnis territory but he's scored some huge goals with that slap shot. Just a couple examples would be the gold medal winner in '06 and a game winning one timer over the shoulder of Irbe in the '02 finals. In fact, that '02 team had Hull, Shanahan, Fedorov, Robitaille and Yzerman (all guys who had great one timers) and it was Lidstrom they often tried to feed the most.

I feel that if he were on any other team, he wouldn't have the stats he'd have today, even though he'd roughly be the same d-man. While guys like Potvin and Bourque (and Harvey, if others are to be believed) had skills that would translate elitely with any team....

You take Lidstrom out of the equation and the Red Wings don't win any of their 4 recent cups - he was that critical to each of them. If you seriously don't think Lidstrom's skills would translate onto another team then I don't know what to say... I know I'm glad he's a Red Wing.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Your position is not supported by the 1992-93 Pro Scout Ratings:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=939301

Young Europeans figure prominently in the ratings. Lidstrom who had a good 1991-92 placing well in the Calder is not even listed. So his draft position is understandable given the pro perspective of progress.

Ray Bourque throughout his career played with young dmen integrating them into the NHL from junior or US colleges.Kluzak, Sweeney, Wesley, McLaren, and others. That the Red Wings chose to go the veteran route may be part of a team philosophy or the realization that certain approaches would not work with the personel on hand.

Once again you are comparing apples, forwards with oranges in Dmen. Leetch is by far the youngest Dman listed due to his role and offensive flair at the time.

Go to the draft and you will find that teams for the most part drafted younger, and usually bigger NA players then took longshots in Europe.

Serious scouting and drafting of European players is only a recent trend, due in part to the success Detroit had with these players.

As for the players you listed for Bourque they are hardly legacy players and that point is sinking faster than an anchor.

 

[plusandminus]

He's never been the kind of guy to deke through the opposition , score with a booming shot, or make some dazzling pass through two pairs of legs. Fundamentally, he is highly efficient and great at making small, simple plays.. He has, at his core, three *great* offensive skills:

1) Quickness.
2) His first pass
3) His accurate, rebound-creating shot.

All three of those skills were maximized because he played on Detroit. He always had players who could fight for space in front of the net and get those rebounds or screen that goalie. He's always had great forwards who would get in position to get his passes and wouldn't waste away his passes. And for the most part, he's always played with such great players that could give him some extra time on the backend.

I suppose it depends on how one structure skills, to find the "core skills". But while I think you make good points, I'd like to comment/question the above.

I think Lidstrom is a very interesting player, in that he gets great stats while - to many people, at least casual viewers - not looking outstanding on the ice. It's as if he position himself well, and just consistently plays simple and easy. I think that's why he gets so great stats. He plays simple, and it's probably easy for his teammates (including the goalie) to know where he is and what he will do. I think that is a major advantage that might be overlooked, to have someone - or "something" - on the ice that basically always automatically do the easy and right things.

This is true about his offensive skills too. On the powerplay, he is very good at:
* Getting the puck to the net (it appears that most other defensemen misses to do that far more often). This, again, also makes the teammates know what to expect. When Lidstrom fires his shot, it will hit the net. Or, if someone tries to block the shot, he probably keeps the puck and makes some simple play.
* Keeping the puck in the offensive zone. He seems very agile, always positioned well and able to move quickly to the right position. He is also technically skilled enough to handle not so good passes to him. If he gets that, he's great at still keeping to puck within the zone and within his team.
* Making himself available. This is another case where he makes it easy for his teammates, by his positioning.

To me, he seems like a very intelligent player. He just seems to do what is most favourable to his team, in all situations. To try to make an analogy with goalies, highlight saves are great to watch, but... the better positioned, etc. the goalie was, the lesser need for the highlight save.

His play for Sweden was mentioned. To most Swedes, he is sort of "nothing special" when it comes to him playing for the national team. He did score the 2006 Olympic GW goal, and he was good during the tournament, but it was Kenny Jonsson (playing in a Swedish 2nd level league) who was considered the best defenseman and great defensive "hero". (Kenny was also voted best defenseman of the tournament.) Comments on Lidstrom often goes like, "Well, he does not look that great, but if you look at him night by night during a season, who will eventually see what makes him so great".
I think Lidstrom is an interesting player as no matter how good his stats are, and all the Norris'es, there seems to be a general impression that "well, he's not THAT good". It seems one (including me) cannot be completely sure about how great (or not) he is. Perhaps if he had played for 3 or more teams, having similar stats, it would be easier. Perhaps like the Sedin discussions... how benefitted (or not) are they by playing together? How does Lidstrom and Detroit benefit (or not) together? (I do think both Sedins and Lidstrom/Detroit benefits. But then again, how much? And could a player like Bourque actually partly have benefitted by being THE defenseman of the team on offensive and defense?)

 

[plusandminus]

Once again you are comparing apples, forwards with oranges in Dmen. Leetch is by far the youngest Dman listed due to his role and offensive flair at the time.

Go to the draft and you will find that teams for the most part drafted younger, and usually bigger NA players then took longshots in Europe.

Serious scouting and drafting of European players is only a recent trend, due in part to the success Detroit had with these players.

My impressions too.
And it even seems the European scouts had to do quite a lot of convincing, and if not, guys like Forsberg, Zetterberg, Datsyuk and others might as well have gone even lower in the draft.

 

[OrrNumber4]

But you can also say Detroit was like that because of Lidstrom. Detroit purposefully built around Lidstrom and that's why his skills have been maximized.

Maybe. But I also think they built it around their great forward corps and other great defensemen.