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

[OrrNumber4]

I don't think you get anywhere looking at era-specific advantages. It just becomes cylical.

You can argue that Lidstrom's trophies are more valuable because he won them in a 30-team league...but you can also argue they are less valuable, because Lidstrom played on the unquestionably best team that helped him exploit a weak field.

You can argue that Harvey's trophies are more valuable because he won them playing 250 games against Gordie Howe...but you can also argue that while he played against top talents he was absoutely inundated by top talents and had to be #1 of a much smaller pool.

Another thing I will mention:

By all accounts, Harvey is credited with introducing the concept of an offensive defenseman.

Orr introduced the concept of a puck-rushing defenseman.

Coffey is credited with furthering Orr's legacy and introducing the concept of the 4th forward and the high-octane defenseman.

Potvin, IMO, revolutionized the stretch pass. It brought a lot of changes to the transition game as we know it.

Lidstrom and Bourque don't really have that feather in their cap.

Lidstrom cup's gain more appreciation because he won them in a 30-team league

 

[Epsilon]

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.

The "hyperbolic nonsense" is this post. Somewhere after the top 10 or 15? Behind Stevens, Park, Coffey, and "several others"? Being "physically feared" is not in any way, shape, or form a requirement for being a good defenseman. Nor is "innovating", which is inherently biased towards older players. Not to mention some of the answers to these questions, which you are obviously posing rhetorically and assuming the answer is no, are actually (at least partly) yes. Yes, Lidstrom is a 10 time 1st team all-star. Was he the glue that held the room together? At certain times, almost certainly. It's no coincidence the Wings' post-lockout resurgence coincided with Lidstrom becoming captain. And what player listed was "almost the sole driving force behind 4 consecutive Stanley Cups"? Please don't say you are talking about Harvey or Potvin, that's laughable.

This is typical old fart thinking in it's most cliched form.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nicklas Lidstrom and Physicality

The popular descriptionof Nicklas Lidstrom's play is that his skills are so high end that he does not have to play physically. This mantra has been around since the 1997 SC finals against the Flyers and Eric Lindros Watch the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82K59UETcTc

Rather obvious that Nicklas Lidstrom does hit. So let's put the noble, non-physical defenseman version of Nicklas Lidstrom to the test.

The Classic Larry Robinson hit on Gary Dornhoefer in the 1976 SC finals against the Flyers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKd4HJNSbQg

The Chara on Pacioretty hit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_BDn37VSE

Notice that on the Lidstrom hit he takes a path to the target that is virtually perpendicular to the boards. Upon making contact Nicklas Lidstrom is tangled with the player and out of position, unable to get back into position in the defensive zone.

The Robinson and Chara hits illustrate proper technique, the angle to the target is not perpendicular to the boards but angled. The target is hit just as hard if not harder but the defenseman doing the hitting continues on into his defensive zone, not giving up position, able to play the puck.

So there is a difference between, not willing to, not having to hit because of superior technique and not being able to hit properly. In the Nicklas Lidstrom situation it is not having the techique to hit properly. To his credit after a few years in the league he recognized that hitting put him at a positional disadvantage and limited his hitting accordingly.

There is an interesting thread - 1992-93 Pro Scout Ratings:

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

Previously it was stated that Nicklas Lidstrom was drafted in the 3rd round. Combined the draft position and the 1992-93 Pro Scout ratings - Lidstrom received a grade of 18 in the Felix Potvin, Gilbert Dionne range, evoked cries of bias against European dmen, scouts not knowing what they are doing, etc.

Well there are reasons why none of the players were first round picks when drafted and were rated in the 17-19 range during the 1992-93 ratings. There games were lacking certain elements.

Even the weaker scouts, amateur or pro, can spot whether a defenseman can hit at the NHL level. The issue is not does he hit at the junior level or entering the pros, rather whether his appreciation of the on ice geometry and angles is sufficient to eventually incorporate hitting at the NHL level. Simply in Lidstrom's case the effective hitting aspect of the game was not going to materialize. The various scouts recognized it early and the few times that Lidstrom has tried to hit or play a physical game have simply confirmed the initial view. That Nickles Lidstrom recognized that hitting was not going to be an integral part of his game is a tribute to him as is the great success he has had without hitting. On the other hand the choice Lidstrom made to rarely hit has to be recognized for the reasons why the choice was made.

A quick aside. Innovation being biased to favour the older players. Really? Medical technology certainly disagrees. Posting such a comment on the internet is contradictory as Bill Gates was definitively innovative. Modern day hockey players are just as innovative. Gretzky, Lemieux, two of Lidstrom's contemporaries were certainly innovative in the way they used parts of the ice to create offence. The behind the net and the half boards were previously considered dead ice for offense. Defensive systems are certainly innovative with players spinning their own variants to fit situations and skills.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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?

Or maybe he has a Mats Sundin type of career if it had been him that was traded to the Leafs.

Lidstrom would have been great on any team IMO, his biggest downfall is that he is very consistent and has great positioning and isn't flashy. Remember all those people touting Jovo as the next big thing, mainly because of his hits, and look how he turned out Phaneuf is another prime example.

 

[danincanada]

Notice that on the Lidstrom hit he takes a path to the target that is virtually perpendicular to the boards. Upon making contact Nicklas Lidstrom is tangled with the player and out of position, unable to get back into position in the defensive zone.

The Robinson and Chara hits illustrate proper technique, the angle to the target is not perpendicular to the boards but angled. The target is hit just as hard if not harder but the defenseman doing the hitting continues on into his defensive zone, not giving up position, able to play the puck.

So there is a difference between, not willing to, not having to hit because of superior technique and not being able to hit properly. In the Nicklas Lidstrom situation it is not having the techique to hit properly. To his credit after a few years in the league he recognized that hitting put him at a positional disadvantage and limited his hitting accordingly.

Did you not notice that time was expiring when Lidstrom made this hit? After the hit, OT came to an end so the hit was actually effective and stopped the Stars from getting a scoring chance before it went to the shootout. Knowing the amount of time left and the situation, there was nothing wrong with this hit.

Robinson and Chara are/were better hitters than Lidstrom. Everyone knows this. Neely was an infinitely better hitter than Gretzky too but who was the better player?

 

[danincanada]

Even the weaker scouts, amateur or pro, can spot whether a defenseman can hit at the NHL level. The issue is not does he hit at the junior level or entering the pros, rather whether his appreciation of the on ice geometry and angles is sufficient to eventually incorporate hitting at the NHL level. Simply in Lidstrom's case the effective hitting aspect of the game was not going to materialize. The various scouts recognized it early and the few times that Lidstrom has tried to hit or play a physical game have simply confirmed the initial view. That Nickles Lidstrom recognized that hitting was not going to be an integral part of his game is a tribute to him as is the great success he has had without hitting. On the other hand the choice Lidstrom made to rarely hit has to be recognized for the reasons why the choice was made.

Other than being a forward you could substitute Gretzky's name in there for Lidstrom and you would have the same point. Do you think any scouts liked Gretzky for his physical play and hitting? Same applies to Lidstrom.

I guess we have it then. Lidstrom = Gretzky of Defense. What's more amazing is that he played defense and didn't need to be physical.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Irrelevent

Did you not notice that time was expiring when Lidstrom made this hit? After the hit, OT came to an end so the hit was actually effective and stopped the Stars from getting a scoring chance before it went to the shootout. Knowing the amount of time left and the situation, there was nothing wrong with this hit.

Robinson and Chara are/were better hitters than Lidstrom. Everyone knows this. Neely was an infinitely better hitter than Gretzky too but who was the better player?

Proper technique is not a function of time left in a period or game. Proper technique is a stand alone attribute Effectiveness does not define proper technique. Various desparation moves may be effective but they do not represent proper technique.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

You have Park ahead of Lidstrom? and place Nick in the 10-15 range? I live in Vancouver any chance I can get some of what you are smoking because it sounds absolutely mind blowing.

Changing the way the game is played is strictly a chronological thing, the 1st guy who comes along and does something is not necessarily the best at it. I'll give the example of cars and computers here.

This "extra credit" given to guys like Shore, Orr and Harvey is verging on the ridiculous and smacks of misplaced nostalgia.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scouts

Other than being a forward you could substitute Gretzky's name in there for Lidstrom and you would have the same point. Do you think any scouts liked Gretzky for his physical play and hitting? Same applies to Lidstrom.

I guess we have it then. Lidstrom = Gretzky of Defense. What's more amazing is that he played defense and didn't need to be physical.

Scouts recognized that Gretzky skill set was not going to include physical play and hitting. The only question was would his skill set carry on to the NHL. It did.

The point about Lidstrom is that like Gretzky the scouts recognized the skill set and what he could not do but it took Lidstrom much longer to adapt to the NHL with his skill set and he never dominated in specific areas like an Orr or Coffey or Potvin or Harvey.

The physicality argument re Lidstrom is interesting because it may be shown why he cannot play a physical game as effectively as he plays a non-physical game. conversely I have yet to see his proponent describe his non-physical defensive checking techniques. The simple non-physical umbrella generalization is insufficient. It is possible to describe Gretzky non-physical offensive game looking at the various attributes the different passing techniques, etc. Step=up and do it for Lidstrom and his defensive checking techniques.

 

[danincanada]

Proper technique is not a function of time left in a period or game. Proper technique is a stand alone attribute Effectiveness does not define proper technique. Various desparation moves may be effective but they do not represent proper technique.

Irrelevent is right. I don't recall Gretzky throwing very many hits and he could still play this sport of hockey. Why should Lidstrom be looked at any differently? He played an extremely effective all-around game without being physical.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Proper technique is not a function of time left in a period or game. Proper technique is a stand alone attribute Effectiveness does not define proper technique. Various desparation moves may be effective but they do not represent proper technique.

Proper technique? wow this is nitpicking, there are tons of guys that can make a great hit but can they actually play the game or be listed better than Lidstrom.

Hasek and Thomas are technically not that great either but Hasek is considered by some as the greatest ever.

Heck technically Gretzky's skating style left alot to be desired but we all know what he did as a player.

Maybe the next argument will be that Lidstrom prefers Starbucks to Timmy's, which would be near as relevant as some the arguments brought against Lidstrom recently in some of these threads.

Look, everyone knows that Lidstrom lacks the "wow" factor but the bottom line is that he has an extremely long and productive career at the highest level and is among the all time greats on the back end. Guys can have personal favorites for their top 5 but Lidstrom is in the mix for number 1 as far as I'm concerned.

 

[danincanada]

Scouts recognized that Gretzky skill set was not going to include physical play and hitting. The only question was would his skill set carry on to the NHL. It did.

The point about Lidstrom is that like Gretzky the scouts recognized the skill set and what he could not do but it took Lidstrom much longer to adapt to the NHL with his skill set and he never dominated in specific areas like an Orr or Coffey or Potvin or Harvey.

The physicality argument re Lidstrom is interesting because it may be shown why he cannot play a physical game as effectively as he plays a non-physical game. conversely I have yet to see his proponent describe his non-physical defensive checking techniques. The simple non-physical umbrella generalization is insufficient. It is possible to describe Gretzky non-physical offensive game looking at the various attributes the different passing techniques, etc. Step=up and do it for Lidstrom and his defensive checking techniques.

If you don't understand how Lidstrom does what he does then it sounds like you need to watch him play more.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Proper technique? wow this is nitpicking, there are tons of guys that can make a great hit but can they actually play the game or be listed better than Lidstrom.

Hasek and Thomas are technically not that great either but Hasek is considered by some as the greatest ever.

Heck technically Gretzky's skating style left alot to be desired but we all know what he did as a player.

Maybe the next argument will be that Lidstrom prefers Starbucks to Timmy's, which would be near as relevant as some the arguments brought against Lidstrom recently in some of these threads.

Look, everyone knows that Lidstrom lacks the "wow" factor but the bottom line is that he has an extremely long and productive career at the highest level and is among the all time greats on the back end. Guys can have personal favorites for their top 5 but Lidstrom is in the mix for number 1 as far as I'm concerned.

All fair points...except the last line...might be stretching it a bit there. Avoid Orr territory and you avoid the storm that may follow.
The arguments here are on the ranking of Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey, Shore and Potvin in the 2-6 spots.
Trying to bypass those arguments by jumping Lids up to Orr aint gonna fly my friend.
There is no "mix" for #1, unless of course you're arguing that Lidstrom should now be ranked up with Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe...good luck with that one.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Avoiding

If you don't understand how Lidstrom does what he does then it sounds like you need to watch him play more.

I have watched Lidstrom since the 1991 Canada Cup and have an excelent idea of what he does and cannot do. You are simply avoiding the question. Describe his non-physical defensive techniques by looking at the poke check, hook check and sweep check techniques.

 

[Hardyvan123]

All fair points...except the last line...might be stretching it a bit there. Avoid Orr territory and you avoid the storm that may follow.
The arguments here are on the ranking of Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey, Shore and Potvin in the 2-6 spots.
Trying to bypass those arguments by jumping Lids up to Orr aint gonna fly my friend.
There is no "mix" for #1, unless of course you're arguing that Lidstrom should now be ranked up with Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe...good luck with that one.

I know that I'm in the minority on this one but I value longevity and look at players in their context and I have already gone over about Orr's short career and the times he played in (ever expanding NHL with lesser competition compared to Lidstrom playing in a strong 30 team league for his career and for such a long period of time)

 

[Rhiessan71]

I know that I'm in the minority on this one but I value longevity and look at players in their context and I have already gone over about Orr's short career and the times he played in (ever expanding NHL with lesser competition compared to Lidstrom playing in a strong 30 team league for his career and for such a long period of time)

Dude...Orr is unanimously recognized as one of the best 3-4 players in the history of the game.

You couldn't even have Lidstrom unanimously recognized as the second best Red Wing to ever play the game, let alone the first.

Saying that your opinion is in the minority is like saying that a female, black, Jewish, cowboy is a minority heh.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Dude...Orr is unanimously recognized as one of the best 3-4 players in the history of the game.

You couldn't even have Lidstrom unanimously recognized as the second best Red Wing to ever play the game, let alone the first.

Saying that your opinion is in the minority is like saying that a female, black, Jewish, cowboy is a minority heh.

Most people just repeat the mantra that Orr is in the mix for number 1 of all time.

If you only look at peak sure there is an argument for that but if you look at overall length and context of the league Orr slips down, a bit, IMO.

I'm not saying that he isn't an all time great but in my criteria staying power counts for something as well as context of the league any player played in.

It's too bad but most people don't even consider these points because it's just sacrilege to do so in hockey circles.

We can agree to disagree on this point.

Also Lidstrom made it to 17th on the 2009 all time list on these boards, pretty sure that everyone has a different top 5,10,15,20 ect...

 

[The Perfect Human*]

Lidstrom's supremacy should be backed up by the fact that he was able to excel in 3 different era's of hockey:

1) The high-scoring early-to-late 90's
2) The clutch-and-grab late-90's till the lockout
3) The post-lockout era where everything's a penalty.

He was able to amend his game and play at an elite level for 20 years. How is this guy not #2, and to be honest, how is he not in discussion for #1? (the feat of dominating 3 era's like that is ridiculous. Only Lemieux could make that transition)

 

[The Perfect Human*]

Most people just repeat the mantra that Orr is in the mix for number 1 of all time.

If you only look at peak sure there is an argument for that but if you look at overall length and context of the league Orr slips down, a bit, IMO.

I'm not saying that he isn't an all time great but in my criteria staying power counts for something as well as context of the league any player played in.

It's too bad but most people don't even consider these points because it's just sacrilege to do so in hockey circles.

We can agree to disagree on this point.

Also Lidstrom made it to 17th on the 2009 all time list on these boards, pretty sure that everyone has a different top 5,10,15,20 ect...

If you're an NHL GM and you were given the choice of 7-8 years of Orr (during which 6 of them were absolute dominance) or 20 years of Nicklas Lidstrom playing consistent injury-free hockey (he's played something like 97% of all games in his career), which would you take?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Most people just repeat the mantra that Orr is in the mix for number 1 of all time.

It's not a mantra just because you say it is. Orr IS one of the greatest player I ever saw and NO ONE that actually saw Orr or played will him will say different.

Maybe in another 40-50 years, when all the people that actually saw Orr play, are dead and gone you can repeat this crap.

And again, you couldn't even get an unanimous consensus to put Lidstrom above Yzerman for the Wing's all-time #2 spot.

Pick the battles you can actually participate in, not the one's that are over before you can get your first shot off.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If you're an NHL GM and you were given the choice of 7-8 years of Orr (during which 6 of them were absolute dominance) or 20 years of Nicklas Lidstrom playing consistent injury-free hockey (he's played something like 97% of all games in his career), which would you take?

Take it one step further and add in that with today's medical knowledge, his 9 years becomes 15 and those 6 of absolute dominance become 9-10...it quickly become a rhetorical question.

 

[The Perfect Human*]

It's not a mantra just because you say it is. Orr IS one of the greatest player I ever saw and NO ONE that actually saw Orr or played will him will say different.

Maybe in another 40-50 years, when all the people that actually saw Orr play, are dead and gone you can repeat this crap.

And again, you couldn't even get an unanimous consensus to put Lidstrom above Yzerman for the Wing's all-time #2 spot.

Pick the battles you can actually participate in, not the one's that are over before you can get your first shot off.

But to be honest Lidstrom is a better all-time hockey player than Yzerman. Detroit fans just really love Yzerman (as most do) for his great offensive numbers and play. Howe is highly regarded for his longevity (I don't know how, he was basically a point/game player for his career).

Has anyone noticed that the Red Wings have made the playoffs EVERY year since Lidstrom has been a DRW? He's the one constant on that team, the ultimate stabilizer.

 

[The Perfect Human*]

Take it one step further and add in that with today's medical knowledge, his 9 years becomes 15 and those 6 of absolute dominance become 9-10...it quickly become a rhetorical question.

If you're going to go by "today" then it's easily a no-brainer for Lidstrom. Orr was a great player in his day, the best no doubt. If he tried to play his game in today's NHL he'd get wasted.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If you're going to go by "today" then it's easily a no-brainer for Lidstrom. Orr was a great player in his day, the best no doubt. If he tried to play his game in today's NHL he'd get wasted.

Yeah, yeah, so would Gretzky, we know

 

[The Perfect Human*]

Yeah, yeah, so would Gretzky, we know

No, he'd be the 2nd best player in the game based on vision alone. Lemieux would dominate the game.