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

[OrrNumber4]

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



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.



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.

I'd definitely call Lids a playoff warrior.

My post wasn't meant to demean Lidstrom's accomplishments because he had a great situation. It was just a comment on how everything seemed to line up very well for him from a developmental/career standpoint. Full credit to Lidstrom for making the most of it.

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.

You take out Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Yzerman, Fedorov, etc. and the cup wins start to fall away.

I think that Lidstrom statistically benefits more-than-usual from his environment. On some other teams, I think he'd be a 30/40-point defenseman....

 

[Epsilon]

If Joe Sakic hadn't played his entire career in a great situation for him on the Quebec/Colorado franchise, his numbers would be nowhere near as good as they are. On some teams, he'd be a 60-80 point forward.

Isn't pure speculation fun?

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'd definitely call Lids a playoff warrior.

My post wasn't meant to demean Lidstrom's accomplishments because he had a great situation. It was just a comment on how everything seemed to line up very well for him from a developmental/career standpoint. Full credit to Lidstrom for making the most of it.




You take out Zetterberg, Datsyuk, Yzerman, Fedorov, etc. and the cup wins start to fall away.

I think that Lidstrom statistically benefits more-than-usual from his environment. On some other teams, I think he'd be a 30/40-point defenseman....

I agree about the cup wins being dependent on a team as a whole, but not with your assumption that his point totals would suffer.

It is entirely likely that on a team with less talent, where he needed to jump into the play to make things happen more and do more himself, rather than always having great forwards to make that first pass too, that his statistics would either be just as good, or improve. Certainly +/- would suffer due to its dependence on all 6 players on the ice, but his scoring may well jump as he gets more involved.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I agree about the cup wins being dependent on a team as a whole, but not with your assumption that his point totals would suffer.

It is entirely likely that on a team with less talent, where he needed to jump into the play to make things happen more and do more himself, rather than always having great forwards to make that first pass too, that his statistics would either be just as good, or improve. Certainly +/- would suffer due to its dependence on all 6 players on the ice, but his scoring may well jump as he gets more involved.

A very good point. However, from the hockey I've watched, players are usually more helped by playing with better talent (statistically) than they are by having more responsiblity. Considering that Lidstrom has a very conservative mentality, I don't think he'd do as well in a puck-rushing kind of role.

Again, it is all speculative.

Basically, from watching them play, I feel that Bourque and Potvin had a more diverse skill set.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Your definition of an offensive "compiler" is an interesting one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you calling Lidstrom a "compiler" because he put up his points in a non-flashy way?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Detroit lost to an excellent Colorado team in 6 in both 1999 and 2000. Isn't it possible that the better team won both of those series and that maybe it wasn't Lidstrom's fault that they lost?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Quality of Teammates and Opposition - Harvey / Lidstrom

Doug Harvey vs Nicklas Lidstrom comes down to looking at the relative quality of teammates and opposition.Looking at actual and potential HHOFers is revealing. In both instances there is overlap. Harvey played with and against certain players - Andy Bathgate, as did Lidstrom - Chris Chelios. Some of Lidstroms team mates and opponents will be added to the HHOF in years to come. Doubtful that anymore from Harvey's era will be added.Builder qualified HHOFERS - Mathers, Francis should be ignored.Comments refer to regular season and playoff games.

DOUG HARVEY 1250 NHL Games / NICKLAS LIDSTROM > 1750 NHL Games
FORWARDS

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

It was a rare game that Doug Harvey did not have to face a HHOF quality forward.Even the extremely weak or offensively challenged teams had a few quality offensive forwards.Late forties/early fifties Blackhawks had Bill Mosienko and Doug Bentley, Late fifties/early sixties Bruins had John Bucyk.

At the elite level or playoff caliber team level, teams would have upwards of five HHOF quality forwards.Doug Harvey would have played app.200 - 250 games against the elite forwards like Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Alex Delvecchio, and over 100 games against the top scorers like of Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovlich, Andy Bathgate, Norm Ullman,. Most of the quality two way forwards, Harvey faced between 75 and 200 times.

Nicklas Lidstrom never faced any elite quality forwards like a Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg in over 200 games. Some like Lemieux and Jagr he never faced in a playoff series. As for HHOF quality opposition every game, it would be a minority of games where the oppostion had even one HHOF quality forward.

During Doug Harvey's career, long term > 2 seasons/150 games, HHOF quality forward teammates included Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore, Bert Olmstead, Elmer Lach, Andy Bathgate. Conversely virtually every game during his career Nicklas Lidstrom has been supported by HHOF quality forwards - Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov,Igor Larionov, Brendan Shanahan, Luc Robitaille, Brett Hull, Pavel Datsyuk, Henrik Zetterberg,Dino Ciccarelli.

DMEN

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

Virtually every game that Doug Harvey played during the O6 phase of his career included at least one HHOF quality dman playing for the opposition including at least 200 - 250 games against each of the elite level dmen like Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby, Tim Horton, Alan Stanley,Marcel Pronovost and well over 100 games against Pierre Pilote,Name the HHOF dmen that Nicklas Lidstrom faced over 199 times during his career,? Certainly not Ray Bourque or the eastern stars, leaving Rob Blake, Chris Chelios. Again the majority of the games that Lidstrom played was against opponents without a HHOF quality dman.

During Doug Harvey's career, long term > 2 seasons/150 games HHOF quality d-men team mates of Doug Harvey = Tom Johnson, Emile, Bouchard, Ken Reardon,Harry Howell, Nicklas Lidstrom was supported by the following HHOF quality dmen, Paul Coffey, Mark Howe, Larry Murphy, Slava Fetisov, Chris Chelios.

GOALIES

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

Conservative estimate would be that in at least 80% of the games that Doug Harvey played, the opposition featured a HHOF quality goalie. Including at least 200 games against the Terry Sawchuk and well over 100 against Glenn Hall, Johnny Bower, Harry Limley.

During Doug Harvey's career, long term > 2 seasons/150 games. HHOF quality goalies Harvey's team mates included Bill Durnan, Jacques Plante and Gump Worsely.

Lidstrom did not have the same quality of goalies as team mates - Dominik Hasek was the only HHOF quality team mate for over two seasons, > 150 games. Conversely Lidstrom the majority of games that Lidstrom played did not have HHOF goalies as opponents, Ed Belfour, Curtis Joseph and Patrick Roy would be the most frequent but the actual number of games against each were < 125 each. Star eastern goalies like Brodeur or Hasek were not faced often

On balance Nicklas Lidstrom had a much longer career, with better supporting team mates while playing against weaker opposition than Doug Harvey. Doug Harvey accomplished the equivalent or more against stronger opposition over a smaller time span playing fewer games.

 

[seventieslord]

you can't compare their competition to eachother like that. In a smaller league, you are going to have more HHOFers on your team and more HHOFers as opponent. In a larger league, the opposite.

The question really is, how stacked were their teams compared to the rest of the league?

The answer is, Lidstrom's teams were very stacked, but Harvey's Habs were so stacked that it should have been illegal.

 

[Reds4Life]

Doug Harvey vs Nicklas Lidstrom comes down to looking at the relative quality of teammates and opposition.Looking at actual and potential HHOFers is revealing.

Comparing apples and oranges while being condescending. You should get a Nobel Prize.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At the elite level or playoff caliber team level, teams would have upwards of five HHOF quality forwards.Doug Harvey would have played app.200 - 250 games against the elite forwards like Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Alex Delvecchio, and over 100 games against the top scorers like of Bobby Hull, Frank Mahovlich, Andy Bathgate, Norm Ullman,. Most of the quality two way forwards, Harvey faced between 75 and 200 times.

Nicklas Lidstrom never faced any elite quality forwards like a Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg in over 200 games. Some like Lemieux and Jagr he never faced in a playoff series. As for HHOF quality opposition every game, it would be a minority of games where the oppostion had even one HHOF quality forward.

You could substitute "any player who played a number of years in the Original 6" for "Doug Harvey" and "any player from the 30 team-era" for "Nicklas Lidstrom" and this statement would still be true.

Conservative estimate would be that in at least 80% of the games that Doug Harvey played, the opposition featured a HHOF quality goalie.

You could substitute "any player who played in Doug Harvey's era," and the statement would be accurate.

On balance Nicklas Lidstrom had a much longer career, with better supporting team mates while playing against weaker opposition than Doug Harvey.

Are you kidding me? Lidstrom had better supporting teammates than Harvey? The late 50s Canadians were the most stacked team in history - the gap between them and anyone else was far greater than any gap that may have existed between Detroit and Colorado/New Jersey/Dallas.

Doug Harvey accomplished the equivalent or more against stronger opposition over a smaller time span playing fewer games.

Harvey's "opposition was stronger" because it was concentrated among 6 teams. That doesn't make him a better player. This logic is just as twisted as when kids say playing in a 30 team league makes Lidstrom a better player because there are now more players in the NHL than when there were 6 teams.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Your definition of an offensive "compiler" is an interesting one. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you calling Lidstrom a "compiler" because he put up his points in a non-flashy way?

I put compiler in quotes because it differs from the standard definition.

I think Lidstrom's statistics make him look better than he actually was offensively. This is because he played in an environment that was uniquely suited to his skills.

Basically, even though they may be even statistically, I think Bourque and Potvin were notably superior offensive talents. Though I never saw him play, the descriptions of Harvey make me think he is a superior offensive talent.

 

[Zine]

Doug Harvey vs Nicklas Lidstrom comes down to looking at the relative quality of teammates and opposition.Looking at actual and potential HHOFers is revealing. In both instances there is overlap. Harvey played with and against certain players - Andy Bathgate, as did Lidstrom - Chris Chelios. Some of Lidstroms team mates and opponents will be added to the HHOF in years to come. Doubtful that anymore from Harvey's era will be added.Builder qualified HHOFERS - Mathers, Francis should be ignored.Comments refer to regular season and playoff games.

Seriously?

Like TheDevilMadeMe noted, you could say the same about any player who played Doug Harvey's era.

Apples and Oranges

 

[Epsilon]

I put compiler in quotes because it differs from the standard definition.

I think Lidstrom's statistics make him look better than he actually was offensively. This is because he played in an environment that was uniquely suited to his skills.

Basically, even though they may be even statistically, I think Bourque and Potvin were notably superior offensive talents. Though I never saw him play, the descriptions of Harvey make me think he is a superior offensive talent.

Every team in the league wants and needs guys who can make a great first/outlet pass and run the point on the powerplay, either getting shots on net or creating rebounds off the back boards. His skill set is pretty much the furthest thing from one that needed a unique team.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How Stacked?

you can't compare their competition to eachother like that. In a smaller league, you are going to have more HHOFers on your team and more HHOFers as opponent. In a larger league, the opposite.

The question really is, how stacked were their teams compared to the rest of the league?

The answer is, Lidstrom's teams were very stacked, but Harvey's Habs were so stacked that it should have been illegal.

How stacked? Your answer may be found by looking at the dynasties that surrounded the teams of each of the two players. The Canadiens dynasty with Harvey covered a five season span out of 14 seasons yielding 5 consecutive Stanley cups between 1956 and 1960 plus a disjoint SC in 1953. The rest of the time the Canadiens fluctuated between the second and third best team in the league with seasons two seasons where they were fourth and fifth. Once they did not make the playoffs.

The Leafs and Red Wings from the era were more or less at the same level with each team going thru seasons where they also missed the playoffs. Stacked organizations do not miss the playoffs.

Conversely the Red Wings with Nicklas Lidstrom have been a pseudo dynasty for fifteen seasons. During this time they have never missed the playoffs while their main competition for pseudo dynasty status New Jersey and Colorado have missed the playoffs during the same stretch, as have all the contemporary Stanley Cup winning teams since 1992, the first season that Lidstrom played in the NHL. So the separation between the Red Wings and the rest of the NHL during Lidstrom's career is far greater than at any time during the history of the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank You

You could substitute "any player who played a number of years in the Original 6" for "Doug Harvey" and "any player from the 30 team-era" for "Nicklas Lidstrom" and this statement would still be true.



You could substitute "any player who played in Doug Harvey's era," and the statement would be accurate.



Are you kidding me? Lidstrom had better supporting teammates than Harvey? The late 50s Canadians were the most stacked team in history - the gap between them and anyone else was far greater than any gap that may have existed between Detroit and Colorado/New Jersey/Dallas.



Harvey's "opposition was stronger" because it was concentrated among 6 teams. That doesn't make him a better player. This logic is just as twisted as when kids say playing in a 30 team league makes Lidstrom a better player because there are now more players in the NHL than when there were 6 teams.

Thank you for admitting that my analysis is true and accurate. Which is a start. Conversely your analogy effectively states that any player could have won the same number of Norris Trophies while attaining the same number of individual awards and honours while contributing to team success. Doubtful

The late 1950's Canadiens is a very selective focus. Extend the focus the Harvey's full career with the Canadiens and the team is less stacked then you claim, tending towards the second or third best. Even the stacked 1956-60 team did not finish first overall during the 1956-57 season so the claim that they were most stacked is somewhat hollow.

The las bolded phrase is fundamental to defining the debate. Be it a 6 or a 30 team NHL, regardless of the provenance of the players each game presents an opportunity for a team win. Player seasons and careers are determined by wins or in a broader sense successful execution. How often during each game, was a player put to the test.

If people wish to believe that being put to the test 250 times against a Gordie Howe is the same as being put to the test 250 teams against a combination of RWs led by a Claude Lemieux they are entitled. Seeing them prove their beliefs is another matter altogether.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

You could substitute "any player who played a number of years in the Original 6" for "Doug Harvey" and "any player from the 30 team-era" for "Nicklas Lidstrom" and this statement would still be true.

Indeed. This "analysis" doesn't prove anything. C1958's challenging other to prove their beliefs, when he hasn't done anything remotely similar himself.

Yes, Harvey's average quality of opposition was higher than Lidstrom's. But by the same token, his average quality of teammate was higher as well. Concentrating players into a smaller number of teams makes every team of a higher average quality, and focusing only on the opposition while ignoring teammates is ridiculous.

But another way, yes Harvey played against Hall of Famers every night. Now, how often did he play with Hall of Famers? And how many of them?

 

[5lidyzer19]

Again, I'll say I don't know much about Harvey or the era...but

You say Harvey faced more Hof players, wouldn't that mean he was also playing WITH more HOF players seeing as how his team was a dynasty against all of these stacked players? For example, in goal behind him and his defense partners.


As far as the Wings playoff string, I think part of that is attributed to the direction the league went in. They created these smaller divisions and the Red Wings was dilluted with expansion teams and a long dormant Chicago team. So basically, we were a shoe-in every year. Although, I would argue we would have made the playoffs in any other division, I think being where we were has helped pad our placing over the years.

Also, I think the idea that Lidstrom hasn't had quality competition is a bit absurd. Look at Colorado's rosters with Sakic/Forsberg. He's played against Crosby and Malkin in the Finals. Modono. Lindros.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This post is typical of the way you have been arguing in this thread.

First some random facts about old time hockey, that while interesting, aren't necessarily relevant to the topic of the thread:

How stacked? Your answer may be found by looking at the dynasties that surrounded the teams of each of the two players. The Canadiens dynasty with Harvey covered a five season span out of 14 seasons yielding 5 consecutive Stanley cups between 1956 and 1960 plus a disjoint SC in 1953. The rest of the time the Canadiens fluctuated between the second and third best team in the league with seasons two seasons where they were fourth and fifth. Once they did not make the playoffs.

The Leafs and Red Wings from the era were more or less at the same level with each team going thru seasons where they also missed the playoffs. Stacked organizations do not miss the playoffs.

Then someone you immediately transition into making unsubstantiated claims about Lidstrom:

Conversely the Red Wings with Nicklas Lidstrom have been a pseudo dynasty for fifteen seasons. During this time they have never missed the playoffs while their main competition for pseudo dynasty status New Jersey and Colorado have missed the playoffs during the same stretch, as have all the contemporary Stanley Cup winning teams since 1992, the first season that Lidstrom played in the NHL. So the separation between the Red Wings and the rest of the NHL during Lidstrom's career is far greater than at any time during the history of the NHL.

So now, it's a discredit to Lidstrom that his Wings made the playoffs every year he played there?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If people wish to believe that being put to the test 250 times against a Gordie Howe is the same as being put to the test 250 teams against a combination of RWs led by a Claude Lemieux they are entitled. Seeing them prove their beliefs is another matter altogether.

Nobody believes this.

Just like I hope nobody believes that having the support of guys like Henri Richard at center Dickie Moore/Bert Olmstead at LW (to go directly against Howe) and a goalie like Jacques Plante is the same as the support Lidstrom got.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Facts

Nobody believes this.

Just like I hope nobody believes that having the support of guys like Henri Richard at center Dickie Moore/Bert Olmstead at LW (to go directly against Howe) and a goalie like Jacques Plante is the same as the support Lidstrom got.

Do you dispute that Howe and Harvey played each other 250 times during their career? If so produce the evidence.

Henri Richard supported Harvey in app 90 games against Gordie Howe.
Jacques Plante maybe 25 more games Moore about the same as Plante, likewise Olmstead. Olmstead played roughly the same number of games against Harvey when he was with Chicago Detroit and Toronto then he did with Harvey in Montreal.

1961-62 season, Doug Harvey as player coach with the Rangers playing without any of the players that you listed played Gordie Howe and the Red Wings.Harvey and the Rangers with Andy Bathgate, Harry Howell and Gump Worsley finished 4 points ahead of the Red Wings with Howe, Norm Ullman, Alex Delvecchio, Bill Gadsby, Terry Sawchuk, claiming the last playoff spot.

Just as impressive if not more, as Lidstrom vs Lindros and the Flyers in 1997. Bringing your point full circle. Just looking at the center position did the Rangers have anyone as impressive for the full season as Yzerman, Fedorov and Larionov? or Henri Richard, Jean Beliveau?

 

[toob]

I think that Lidstrom statistically benefits more-than-usual from his environment. On some other teams, I think he'd be a 30/40-point defenseman....

your point about Lidstrom's point totals being influenced and inflated by his team context is a good one but i just wanna note that that point holds true for most defensemen in general as well because the goals/assists/points stats arent as good of a reflection of the offensive contribution of defensemen as they are of forwards

and of course this is just a generality...
a guy like Paul Coffey for example played on offensive powerhouses for a good part of his career yet in his case i would hesitate to say that his point totals overstate his offensive contribution because he was like a 4th forward

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you dispute that Howe and Harvey played each other 250 times during their career? If so produce the evidence.

I'm not disputing the fact. I just don't see how this fact is relevant to the Harvey / Lidstrom comparison.

1961-62 season, Doug Harvey as player coach with the Rangers playing without any of the players that you listed played Gordie Howe and the Red Wings.Harvey and the Rangers with Andy Bathgate, Harry Howell and Gump Worsley finished 4 points ahead of the Red Wings with Howe, Norm Ullman, Alex Delvecchio, Bill Gadsby, Terry Sawchuk, claiming the last playoff spot.

Just as impressive if not more, as Lidstrom vs Lindros and the Flyers in 1997. Bringing your point full circle. Just looking at the center position did the Rangers have anyone as impressive for the full season as Yzerman, Fedorov and Larionov? or Henri Richard, Jean Beliveau?

Harvey was a key player at helping the Rangers finish 4th out of 6 teams and take the last playoff spot. Lidstrom was a key player as the Red Wings win the Cup in 1997. What's your point? That Lidstrom needed to get traded to a worse team to be considered a better player?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Harvey was a key player at helping the Rangers finish 4th out of 6 teams and take the last playoff spot. Lidstrom was a key player as the Red Wings win the Cup in 1997. What's your point? That Lidstrom needed to get traded to a worse team to be considered a better player?

I'm not sure why anyone is arguing strength of team between Harvey and Lidstrom in the first place. Both players benefited from being a good piece among many good pieces on their respective teams.

The only time this argument should even rear its head is when we're talking about Bourque. If fact, that is what started it in this thread a few pages back.
Someone starts putting Lidstrom's Cups as their basis for putting him ahead of Bourque, someone else points out that Lidstrom had a pretty strong advantage in team strength over Bourque. Then the snowball starts picking up speed.
As soon as it starts going negative and I recognize that I feel myself wanting to add more negative crap about these players, I try to stop posting.


At the end of the day, the majority of the posters in this thread have been through this argument at length long before this particular thread was made.

No amount of arguing or repeating of stats is going to change anyone's mind at this point. Pretty much everyone is entrenched in their rankings and as usual, the thread is deteriorating to the negative.

(Not picking on you in particular Devil, you just happened to be the last poster Hell, I prolly went further on the negative side than you did before I caught myself heh )

 

[Canadiens1958]

Relevent Comparables

I'm not disputing the fact. I just don't see how this fact is relevant to the Harvey / Lidstrom comparison.



Harvey was a key player at helping the Rangers finish 4th out of 6 teams and take the last playoff spot. Lidstrom was a key player as the Red Wings win the Cup in 1997. What's your point? That Lidstrom needed to get traded to a worse team to be considered a better player?

Point is about relevent comparables and weighing contributions accordingly..

Specifically the point is this. Lidstrom had an excellent 4 game series against Eric Lindros and the Flyers. This is celebrated as some incredible coming out event show casing Lidstrom's previously unrecognized talents. Before or after the 1997 SC finals there is little history between Lindros and Lidstrom. Anything between them in the 1991 Canada Cup? No. yet a great deal is made about them competing over 4 games. But at what level is this comparison? Top 20 All Time player against a player who is not even Top 100 All Time.

Conversely you have two consensus Top 10 All- Time players,playing each other 250 times over the course of their careers. The forward - Gordie Howe performs at a level totaling 12 Ross and Hart Trophies, with 16 AST honours contributing to four SCs during a time frame when the defenseman Doug Harvey earns 7 Norris Trophies,with 11 AST honours, contributing to 6 SCs. Playing against each other enhances the individual achievements yet this level of constant competition between two greats gets no recognition at all.

1961-62 Doug Harvey was not only a key player but the head coach as well. Was Nicklas Lidstrom the head coach in 1997? No - Scotty Bowman was. So play at a Norris and AST level, coach at an NHL level in a fashion sufficient to beat a team lead by Gordie Howe out of a playoff spot is not as impressive as a young Lidstrom having four excellent games against Eric Lindros?

Great players competing against each other over the course of a long career enhance each other's status Howe's Hart and Ross trophy wins, SCs plus honours are enhanced because they were attained against over a great number of season's against other greats like Doug Harve, and vice versa.

 

[Killion]

Well, I most respectfully submit to all of you Nik Lidstrom proponents, Jimmy 'D' included, that there should be no comparisons to the incomparable Doug Harvey, who I rank as the 2nd best defenceman of all time, followed by Shore, Bourque, Potvin & Park, Stevens, Coffey & several others, at which point in time somewhere after the top 10 or 15 we land on Lidstrom. Was Lidstrom actually physically feared by his opponents?. Was Lidstrom the glue that held the room together?. Was he a 10 time 1st team all star & almost the sole driving force behind 4 consecutive Stanley Cups?. What tremendous innovations in terms of the defensive-offensive-transitional game did Niklas Lidstrom contribute to the game that we'd never seen before?. Did he change the face of the way the position is played the way Shore, Harvey & Orr did?. All of these intangibles & more, much much more was the late great Doug Harvey. In my mind, there simply is no comparison. Compare Lidstrom to Coffey, that makes sense. Comparing him to Harvey?. Not a chance. Heretical. Hyperbolic nonsense from Devellano.