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

[norrisnick]

Seventieslord is correct but the level of competition has to be considered throughout the league and by position.

PNEP's 2010-11 AS voting tables:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=930781

Show the following:

By Team
9 out of the 30 teams did not have any players that received AS consideration - Colorado, Columbus,Edmonton, Florida, Minnesota,New Jersey, NY Islanders, Ottawa,Toronto,

4 of the 30 teams had only one player receiving AS consideration - Calgary, Montreal, St. Louis, Washington.

By Position
Goalie - only 10 out of 30 teams had goalies receiving AS consideration.
Defense - only 13 of 30 teams had dmen receiving AS consideration
Center - only 9 out of 30 teams had centers receiving AS consideration.
RW - only 7 of 30 teams had RWs receiving AS consideration.
LW - only 10 out of the 30 teams had LWs receiving AS consideration.

The depth of talent in the NHL is very low. How many games or shifts is a player like Lidstrom challenged by AS quality players?

O6 era dmen would be challenged by AS quality players every game. Today the NHL is far from that level and drifting further away every season.

Every team in the league has dangerous players. With only 12 spots on the two lists everyone can't be represented. The Sharks for example may have had votes but no names on the list. But they most certainly have some AS quality forwards. Kovalchuk in New Jersey. Nash in Columbus. Spezza. Stastny. Etc...

Lidstrom's string of Norris wins occurred over 11 years of a static 30 team league. Orr's 9 years of brilliance saw the league triple in size. Triple the number of teams in a 9 year span. Can you imagine trying to fill 90 rosters by 2020? That's the degree of rapid expansion that spanned Orr's career.

 

[5lidyzer19]

If we're comparing him to a higher standard of defensemen, then we have to hold him to that higher standard.

Ok, with a quick look. Bourque won his first Norris in his 8th season with the Bruins at age 28....Lidstrom won his in the 11th season at age 31.

I don't think three years difference is that big in the grand scheme, expecially considering Nick has two more in total anways.

I guess I don't know to what standard it is that you're holding him to.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Ok, with a quick look. Bourque won his first Norris in his 8th season with the Bruins at age 28....Lidstrom won his in the 11th season at age 31.

I don't think three years difference is that big in the grand scheme, expecially considering Nick has two more in total anways.

I guess I don't know to what standard it is that you're holding him to.

You're really only interested in counting Norris Trophies right now, aren't you? A season doesn't live or die based upon winning one.

 

[norrisnick]

Your suppositions have to rank amongst the weakest bluffs I have ever seen. A little research would show the following:

1939 All Star Voting

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=17

post #403. You have extensive breakdowns for 1st and 2nd team voting plus the voting looked at right and left dmen as separate positions

5 out of the 7 starting goalies received AST votes, extrapolating to 2011 this means app 20-21 goalies out of 30 teams would have to receive AST votes.

8 centers amongst 7 teams received AST votes, extrapolating to 2011 this means app 32-33 centers out of 30 teams would have to receive AST votes.

and so forth.

1966 All Star Voting

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=12

5 out of the 6 starting goalies received AST votes. Extrapolating to 2011 this would be 25 out of 30 goalies receiving votes.

19 dmen amongst 6 teams received AST votes. Extrapolating to 2011 this would be 95 dmen receiving AST votes.

7 centers amongst 6 teams received AST votes. Extrapolating to 2011 this would be 35 centers receiving AST votes.

10 LW amongst 6 teams received AST votes. Extrapolating to 2011 this would be 50 LWs receiving AST votes.

6 RW amongst 6 teams received AST votes. Extrapolating to 2011 this would be 30 RWs receiving AST votes.

Further more, neither in the 1939 nor in the 1966 voting did a team get shutout in AST voting like 9 did in 2011 and every team had at least two players receiving AST votes whereas in 2011 13 teams did not even reach this level.

The level of competition game in, game out or shift after shift was higher, deeper and broader in other eras than it is today.

If half the starting goalies are guaranteed a vote by sheer virtue of having to pick 3 names, of course a larger percentage of goalies will have received votes in the original 6 era. To suggest that the overall quality is magically higher because of this is silly. That would be like having the GMs vote for their top 15 goalies today.

 

[5lidyzer19]

Every team in the league has dangerous players. With only 12 spots on the two lists everyone can't be represented. The Sharks for example may have had votes but no names on the list. But they most certainly have some AS quality forwards. Kovalchuk in New Jersey. Nash in Columbus. Spezza. Stastny. Etc...

Lidstrom's string of Norris wins occurred over 11 years of a static 30 team league. Orr's 9 years of brilliance saw the league triple in size. Triple the number of teams in a 9 year span. Can you imagine trying to fill 90 rosters? That's the degree of rapid expansion that spanned Orr's career.

This.

For example, in addition to what you said about teams like the Sharks, there have been years where Zetterberg and Datsyuk have not been on the all-star teams, but the defensemen facing them is still facing elite, all-star level players. Not every amazing player can make the All-star game.

Not to mention, Lidstrom has traditionally been put out against the best of the best. Obviously, he ice time was too valuable to be put up against anything less.

 

[5lidyzer19]

You're really only interested in counting Norris Trophies right now, aren't you? A season doesn't live or die based upon winning one.

I acknowledged what you're getting at in my very first post.



However, I will say that if Bourque had 7 Norris and Lidstrom had 5, it would be used at a pillar reason for those who support Bourque to have him ahead of Lidstrom. So, yes, I will use the hardware as evidence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

When you put some context to your theory you realize the NHL is now an international league and the number of people playing hockey now has grown exponentially since the O6. Therefore Lidstrom has to face tougher and better competition overall than someone would in the O6 when there were really only Canadians playing in the league at a time when the country only had approximately 21,000,000 people. Things have changed so much, but all logic points towards it being tougher to stand out now due to this.

The population explosion and growth of hockey in countries not named Canada has more than made up for expansion in the NHL.

If I were to put forth a theory I would clearly identify it as such. My post was just some food for thought.

Grown exponentially. Well it may have but then again your description brings the following question are we taking exponential growth with positive whole number exponents > 2 or fractional exponents or what.

Now you may be able to show that more people are playing hockey throughout the world but how many of them are playing it well is a totally different issue. Looking at AST voting as one consideration it seems that the proportion of players in the NHL playing the game well is dropping instead of increasing.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Looking at AST voting as one consideration it seems that the proportion of players in the NHL playing the game well is dropping instead of increasing.

No.

There are just many more teams and the same number of votes (or nominees I guess is a better way to put it).

 

[norrisnick]

If I were to put forth a theory I would clearly identify it as such. My post was just some food for thought.

Grown exponentially. Well it may have but then again your description brings the following question are we taking exponential growth with positive whole number exponents > 2 or fractional exponents or what.

Now you may be able to show that more people are playing hockey throughout the world but how many of them are playing it well is a totally different issue. Looking at AST voting as one consideration it seems that the proportion of players in the NHL playing the game well is dropping instead of increasing.

That's simple mathematics when you use the same 12 man All Star list when expanding from 6 teams to 30 teams. Not enough votes to go around. Even if every player in the 30 team league is at least as good as the 13th best player in a 6 team league proportionately it's going to look worse because there is a smaller percentage of representation.

 

[danincanada]

Being as good or better than Iginla, Roy, Theodore, Burke, or Shanahan that year.

Are you saying Shanahan was a better player than Lidstrom in '02? Is this based on Hart trophy voting? There is no doubt in my mind that if Scotty Bowman had to choose between the two he would go with Nick.

 

[norrisnick]

Are you saying Shanahan was a better player than Lidstrom in '02? Is this based on Hart trophy voting? There is no doubt in my mind that if Scotty Bowman had to choose between the two he would go with Nick.

In '02 Scotty referred to Lidstrom as "just about the perfect player on the ice." I don't think he'd have picked anyone ahead of Lidstrom.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

As good as he looked Lidstrom was sheltered this year. Lidstrom averaged 21:49 minutes a night during the playoffs. Playing 22 minutes a night isn’t impressive and it is far easier to look good playing fewer minutes a night while playing in the same offensive situations.

I would have given the award to Weber and the close voting reflects many felt the same (just nine points lower), but Lidstrom’s reputation put him over the top more so than his play.

The Phoenix Series threw his minutes out of whack - A sweep in which each game the Wings had a multi-goal lead every game by the 2nd period. Babcock rested him a lot in that series, and Lidstrom's minutes went from around 19min to over 23min in round two. He's old, though still extremely effective still, and is going to be rested, but his TOI would have most likely increased with each round.

4 goals and 8 pts in 11 games is great (2nd on team in scoring), no matter the icetime, and it's not shocking to note he was a +8 in the playoffs once Howard significantly upped his game from the regular season where be was awful.

Chara had 9 pts in 24 games
Weber had 5 pts in 12 games

 

[lextune]

Both Weber and Chara had better seasons than Lidstrom; that was pitiful last night.

Only 23 minutes a night, (28th in the league), on a 100+ point team and he is a minus 2?

Chara averaged 25:26, (6th in the league), and led the league in +/- at +33

 

[RECsGuy*]

isn't it harder to be a great defenceman on a bad team than on a good one

Is Lidstrom great because he plays for the Red Wings, or are the Red Wings great because Lidstrom plays for them?

 

[Reds4Life]

Both Weber and Chara had better seasons than Lidstrom; that was pitiful last night.

Only 23 minutes a night, (28th in the league), on a 100+ point team and he is a minus 2?

Chara averaged 25:26, (6th in the league), and led the league in +/- at +33

Chara - played in front of the best goalie in the league. As for +/- Bruins had 11 players with +10 or greater. Eight players with +20 or more.

Thomas let in 56 goals LESS than Howard. Thomas faced 1811 shots, Howard 1830. That speaks for itself. +/- is largely a team stat. Red Wings were not very good defensively this year, but that does not mean Lidstrom should be penalized for that.
Once Howard stopped sucking (playoffs), Lidstrom's +/- went up, obviously.

Weber should not have been nominated, at all. Suter was better this season.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Is Lidstrom great because he plays for the Red Wings, or are the Red Wings great because Lidstrom plays for them?

We're going to find out in a year or two.

My money is on it being more of the latter than the former.

Detroit has a great team concept and overall organization but almost certainly Lidstrom has been the common denominator in their success over the last 15 or so years.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Sorry but Shore is #2 and Bourque is #3.

They can battle for #4.

 

[RECsGuy*]

Sorry but Shore is #2 and Bourque is #3.

They can battle for #4.

Well, with that qualifier, you must be right.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

Hi Eddie!

How have you been?

We thought you were dead!

Weird, isn't it? You'd think he'd want to say hello to his wife and kids or something, rather than us.

 

[seventieslord]

Lidstrom clearly won this on reputation. Lidstrom has taken a serious step back this season defensively and it was illustrated by Babcock’s reluctance to play Lidstrom on the penalty kill.

During the playoffs Lidstrom averaged 0:29 SHTOI, only Rafalski played fewer. Lidstrom was third during the regular season behind Kronwall and Stuart but this has been normal for him in the past. Even during some of his prime seasons Lidstrom was second in SHTOI during the regular season but in the playoffs was always number one. Only averaging 29 seconds a game this playoff should illustrate how far his defensive game has fallen from a statistical stand point.

I have heard the excuse all season that it was his defensive partners fault Lidstrom had a low plus minus and why he seemed worse. Watching Lidstrom play you know he has lost a step speed wise so playing his positional defence is not as effective as it once was. I think people will look back at this Norris and consider it one of the weakest Norris fields of all time.

His lack of usage on the PK is definitely points against him. But, as I'm told, at even strength he was far from sheltered, he played the toughest minutes like he usually does. This is far more important than the PK. This is not a case of an offensive specialist who gets 55 points by getting lots of PP time and advantageous ES minutes that actually rank just 4th on the team. He was still worked pretty hard, with competition level taken into account.

What if you shuold start to count Cups and Conn Smythe as well? And an Olympic gold medal game winning goal should be beneficial.

- Cups are a team accomplishment. But yes they do matter. Do they matter enough to bridge that gap? not in my estimation.
- Conn Smythes are a "you win it or you don't" award so their binary nature makes it impossible to have a discussion with any depth to it. Bourque was the undisputed MVP of two finalists and the #1 D-man on a cup winner so it's not like he didn't perform extremely well. Make him born a decade later and drafted in 1989 by Detroit, don't you think he has 7 Norrises and 5 cups now too?

And IMHO he will be, at least in most of the media.

You are most likely right about that.

Lidstrom getting the Norris is testament to the fact that no other D-man had a truly outstanding season. In absence of an obvious choice the voters reverted to the mean which still is Lidstrom.

All-time there isn't a whole lot between Lidstrom, Harvey, Shore, Potvin, Bourque and Robinson IMO.

- you are right that no other D-man had a truly outstanding season. I have no problem with Lidstrom winning it. But now that he has, it opens up cans of worms, like this thread.

- Potvin and Robinson should, by now, be considered a definite tier below those other four.

The way I see, Bourque is still ahead of Lidström. Longveity is close, but I think Bourques peak value is worth more than Lidstrom's stronger playoff portfolio. .

While I agree with you, I just would like to ask you and the others - does Lidstrom actually have a better track record of individual playoff performances? I think Bourque was just as good, but his teammates just weren't anywhere near the level of Lidstrom's.

 

[Dangler99*]

Lidstrom has also led the playoffs in defensive scoring 4 times.

 

[danincanada]

If I were to put forth a theory I would clearly identify it as such. My post was just some food for thought.

Grown exponentially. Well it may have but then again your description brings the following question are we taking exponential growth with positive whole number exponents > 2 or fractional exponents or what.

Now you may be able to show that more people are playing hockey throughout the world but how many of them are playing it well is a totally different issue. Looking at AST voting as one consideration it seems that the proportion of players in the NHL playing the game well is dropping instead of increasing.

Well, that's just an absurd way to look at things. In order for this to make sense you need to ignore how much hockey has grown worldwide and assume the NHL has been in a vacuum since the O6 other than this one point of yours (AST voting).

- O6 is comprised almost entirely of the best Canadians when the country has 21,000,000.

- Current Era is comprised of the best hockey players from all over the world including Canada with approximately 35,000,000.

I don't know how anyone can say what you're stating while knowing the above. It's not like people suddenly stopped knowing how to play hockey and the sport digressed either. In fact, hockey has evolved and the athletes are better than ever.

 

[seventieslord]

I'd take the 7 wins over 5 any day. Although, I'm assuming what you are getting at is that competition was steeper in certain years for Bourque? So basically a 2nd place in that year could theoretically be more meaningful than a 1st place in a weaker year? Correct me if I'm interpreting what you said wrong.

Well, yes, that could be the case, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

We watched these players' careers and watched them pile up accomplishments. Even if we don't verbally state it, every season, every player earns some more "points" in our respective books. Ignoring competition level entirely for simplicity, If you see a norris trophy as X number of points, then surely you have to consider being the runner up as, at the very least, 0.7X or something like that. And being 3rd might be 0.6X. I'd argue that the margins are even tighter than that, personally.

Going by this logic, I find it impossible to see how Lidstrom, with his two extra norris wins, has a better Norris resume than Bourque. Bourque clearly closes the gap with his extra 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th-place seasons.

Try to put together a "points" system that assigns certain values for finishing 1st-5th in norris voting, and you will find it very difficult to concoct a forumla that both puts Lidstrom ahead, and makes any kind of sense. (for example, maybe you'd end up with a system where a win is worth 3X what a 5th-place finish is, I would then ask you, would you prefer a player with one win and nothing else, or a guy with those three elite seasons? it would be really tough to choose the former)

Seventieslord is correct but the level of competition has to be considered throughout the league and by position.

PNEP's 2010-11 AS voting tables:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=930781

Show the following:

By Team
9 out of the 30 teams did not have any players that received AS consideration - Colorado, Columbus,Edmonton, Florida, Minnesota,New Jersey, NY Islanders, Ottawa,Toronto,

4 of the 30 teams had only one player receiving AS consideration - Calgary, Montreal, St. Louis, Washington.

By Position
Goalie - only 10 out of 30 teams had goalies receiving AS consideration.
Defense - only 13 of 30 teams had dmen receiving AS consideration
Center - only 9 out of 30 teams had centers receiving AS consideration.
RW - only 7 of 30 teams had RWs receiving AS consideration.
LW - only 10 out of the 30 teams had LWs receiving AS consideration.

The depth of talent in the NHL is very low. How many games or shifts is a player like Lidstrom challenged by AS quality players?

O6 era dmen would be challenged by AS quality players every game. Today the NHL is far from that level and drifting further away every season.

This doesn't prove anything. The league's talent and competition level could be through the roof, but if a select handful of players stand out the most, they're going to be the ones getting the votes.

If the elite players distinguished themselves less than they did, and the semi-elites didn't change and you "re-ran" this season, you might see even more players get votes, as the elites would have lost some to that 2nd tier. Then you would call this a season of higher competition/talent when it was even lower.

When you put some context to your theory you realize the NHL is now an international league and the number of people playing hockey now has grown exponentially since the O6. Therefore Lidstrom has to face tougher and better competition overall than someone would in the O6 when there were really only Canadians playing in the league at a time when the country only had approximately 21,000,000 people. Things have changed so much, but all logic points towards it being tougher to stand out now due to this.

The population explosion and growth of hockey in countries not named Canada has more than made up for expansion in the NHL.

You are right about all this. However, there is no doubt that, for defensemen in particular, this was a weak season,

As to who is #2 all time.. a case could be made for any of Lidstrom, Bourque, Harvey, Shore and probably a few others..

I will listen to cases for those 4... not "a few others"... ;

Furthermore, while I agree that Bourque faced a tougher class of top defensemen at his peak, lets not try and pretend that Lidstrom and Bourque were not facing the same competition for half their careers that overlapped.

Lidstrom wasn't a norris factor, really, for his first four seasons. There was really only a six-season period where they were both seriously challenging for the award and from 1992-1997 there was almost a complete turnover in the classes of defensemen most likely to take a run at it.

If half the starting goalies are guaranteed a vote by sheer virtue of having to pick 3 names, of course a larger percentage of goalies will have received votes in the original 6 era. To suggest that the overall quality is magically higher because of this is silly. That would be like having the GMs vote for their top 15 goalies today.

well-said.

 

[seventieslord]

We're going to find out in a year or two.

My money is on it being more of the latter than the former.

We're going to find out the same thing about another player pretty soon, too. I think there will be mixed opinions on that one.

Sorry but Shore is #2 and Bourque is #3.

They can battle for #4.

What do you have against Harvey?

Well, that's just an absurd way to look at things. In order for this to make sense you need to ignore how much hockey has grown worldwide and assume the NHL has been in a vacuum since the O6 other than this one point of yours (AST voting).

- O6 is comprised almost entirely of the best Canadians when the country has 21,000,000.

- Current Era is comprised of the best hockey players from all over the world including Canada with approximately 35,000,000.

I don't know how anyone can say what you're stating while knowing the above. It's not like people suddenly stopped knowing how to play hockey and the sport digressed either. In fact, hockey has evolved and the athletes are better than ever.

You are right; let me try to expand on it a bit.

It's true that if you assume the population goes up by about 67%, and the same percentage of people who play hockey stays constant, then being the 200th-best player is more impressive in a higher population than in a lower one.

I think the competition level of the league can often be represented by the gap that exists between the best players and the worst. If we just use Canada as an example, it can be illustrated roughly, and it does "jive" with what we've observed over the last 50 years.

1967: 120 players, practically all Canadian. Therefore the 120th-best Canadian player was what you needed to be, to get in the NHL. let's use your 21,000,000 figure for population since I am not trying to be precise and I assume you checked somewhere.

1970: 250 players, more or less all Canadian. Therefore, you could be the 250th-best Canadian player and be in the NHL. The population had increased in these years, but not anywhere close to the rate at which the number of spots had grown. therefore, the standard for making the NHL had gotten lower, and the league suffered.

1978: the height of the watering down of top-level hockey. 18 NHL teams and a dozen in the WHA. The NHL had room for 400 full-time players or so. Let's say 375 were Canadian. In addition to that, probably a good 100 of those were playing in the WHA. It's likely that the 475th-best Canadian player was able to make the NHL at this time. Population had increased, probably to 24M, obviously not anywhere near the 4X rate that the number of NHL jobs available for Canadians had increased. the NHL's competition level was at its worst since WW2.

1989: the exact numbers have been posted here before, so I'm being approximate. Let's say NHL was about 85% Canadian at this time. Population was about 27M. At this point, using the same math and logic as above, roughly the best 400 Canadians could make the NHL. So instead of having to be just the 475th-best of 22M, you had to be about the 400th-best of 27M. It was now about 35% more "impressive" to just make the NHL than it was a decade before.

fast forward to the present day. There are about 700 NHL players and it's about 55% Canadian, last I checked. There are now 35M Canadians. Again, only about 400 can make it, the same number as 20 years ago. It's now about 40% more "impressive" to get to the NHL than 20 years ago. Even though more teams has meant more jobs, there are many more people competing for them, not just in Canada, but all over the world.

let's go back to 1997 and see whether the standard for a replacement-level NHL player has gotten better or worse:

120/21M
400/35M

There are 67% more Canadians, but 3.3X as many of them can make the NHL. Therefore, it is safe to say that, (assuming percentages of people playing hockey and advancing to levels that feed the top leagues has been relatively constant, and that is a big if), just being in the NHL today is not as impressive a feat as it was 50 years ago. The gap between the best players and the worst in the NHL was probably at an all-time low in 1967, right before the big expansion.

If the NHL remains at 30 teams, and 55% Canadian, and the same caveat about hockey players in the country applies, Canada's population would have to get to 69M to match how tough it was to make the NHL in 1967.

 

[Andros777]

Are any of us even qualified to discuss how good Doug Harvey was? None of us were even born.