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

[danincanada]

Yep, you definitely didn't pay defense. I said enough on the other two goals already and stand by it.

I will however go into it at length on the 6th goal as you apparently need it explained to you at such.
There you are, taking up your spot in front of the net, in good position
on the opposing player stationed
there.

You see not one but two of your teammates on one opposing player behind the net and the player in front backs off the net a little.

Knowing that there's two of your players on one behind the net, you also know that there is an
opposing player running around
unmanned.

That realisation pins you/causes some hesitation and keeps you from being too aggressive for fear
of opening up a passing lane into
the slot where the unmanned
opposing player can backdoor in.

Welcome to Hockey 101 my friend, class dismissed.

I love reading BS that's written in a condescending manner.

I have played hockey all my life and still do. You're right, I usually play forward but the next time I drop back to D I'll try to remember that as long as there is the possibility of another opposing player being nearby I don't need to cover my guy in front of the net.

What you're really saying is that it's better for Orr to stand in front of his goalie doing nothing just in case there are two forwards to contend with then taking the
biggest threat who is already
standing in front (Ferguson).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Jesus, I didn't know Bobby Orr had a bad game.

Interesting numbers from that series:

Bruins had 190 PIMs. In seven games, that's a load.

Orr had 5 goals and 7 assists.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I love reading BS that's written in a condescending manner.

I have played hockey all my life and still do. You're right, I usually play forward but the next time I drop back to D I'll try to remember that as long as there is the possibility of another opposing player being nearby I don't need to cover my guy in front of the net.

What you're really saying is that it's better for Orr to stand in front of his goalie doing nothing just in case there are two forwards to contend with then taking the
biggest threat who is already
standing in front (Ferguson).

Sorry, my bad, you have played, you just certainly haven't coached

Either way, I never said Orr made the right decision there, he hesitated and it cost him. I never claimed different.
I simply pointed out what caused that hesitation and that it had nothing to do with not knowing how to play.
In fact, if anything, he got burned for thinking too much.

Also, if you watch that play again, Orr's teammates didn't exactly have Beliveau contained so again, Orr couldn't commit to Fergie in case Beliveau walks out in front.

I apologize for being condescending but it's hard when this is something I would normally be going over with 10 or 11 year olds.

 

[The Sting]

I love reading BS that's written in a condescending manner.

I have played hockey all my life and still do. You're right, I usually play forward but the next time I drop back to D I'll try to remember that as long as there is the possibility of another opposing player being nearby I don't need to cover my guy in front of the net.

What you're really saying is that it's better for Orr to stand in front of his goalie doing nothing just in case there are two forwards to contend with then taking the
biggest threat who is already
standing in front (Ferguson).

Actually he was standing between the puck and Ferguson, and it was one of the rare times the puck slipped by him. 9/10 times he's got that puck and is away with it before anyone has time to react.

 

[danincanada]

Sorry, my bad, you have played, you just certainly haven't coached

Either way, I never said Orr made the right decision there, he hesitated and it cost him. I never claimed different.
I simply pointed out what caused that hesitation and that it had nothing to do with not knowing how to play.
In fact, if anything, he got burned for thinking too much.

Also, if you watch that play again, Orr's teammates didn't exactly have Beliveau contained so again, Orr couldn't commit to Fergie in case Beliveau walks out in front.

I apologize for being condescending but it's hard when this is something I would normally be going over with 10 or 11 year olds.

I'm glad you admitted Orr made a mistake. I don't think he was over thinking, he just got lazy and didn't cover Ferguson like he should have. It was an easy play for Ferguson, just slide a little higher so Orr can't get the pass and wait for Beliveau to get it out front. It worked perfectly.

Even on that first PP goal by Beliveau, Orr over committed far too much allowing 3 Canadiens to swarm the net with only the other Bruins D in front. Explain that one to me coach.

Orr would definitely need to play tighter defense than that if he wanted to play in todays NHL. He looked more like Mike Green than the greatest player of all-time on some of those plays.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Powerplay

I'm glad you admitted Orr made a mistake. I don't think he was over thinking, he just got lazy and didn't cover Ferguson like he should have. It was an easy play for Ferguson, just slide a little higher so Orr can't get the pass and wait for Beliveau to get it out front. It worked perfectly.

Even on that first PP goal by Beliveau, Orr over committed far too much allowing 3 Canadiens to swarm the net with only the other Bruins D in front. Explain that one to me coach.

Orr would definitely need to play tighter defense than that if he wanted to play in todays NHL. He looked more like Mike Green than the greatest player of all-time on some of those plays.

Simple definition of a PP. The man advantage was exploited per the situation that arose. No player alone or with team mates kills 100% of opposing PPs.1970-71 Bruins with Orr allowed 53 PPG during 336 penalties 84.23%, while scoring 25 SH goals, net consequence was 28 goals given up while killing penalties.

Wings with prime Lidstrom usually give-up around 55 goals with ~86% PK efficiency they score fewer SH goals, never yielding a net as low as 28 or even close.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The C.j. Umberger goal where he beats Lidstrom has been posted many times. A low average player not a HHOFer pulls a classic Maurice Richard move on Lidstrom.

Orr does not get a pass, in fact I comment relative to his 1968 and 1969 playoffs against the Canadiens and the lack of success by Bobby Orr.

Great matching up against great or multiple greats is a true test. Even though one comes out ahead at any given moment there is an ebb and flow between the greats which only enhances the portfolio.

Lidstrom never played against one team with 8 HHOFers plus the depth to replace a 9th - Serge Savard injured. When he played the Avalanche you saw the same back and forth as you would have seen in the classic Canadiens match-ups against Detroit in the fifties.

The degree of difficulty and push back from the opposition from that Mont game and Lidstrom's level of push back, virtually every game isn't even comparable. If you watch the video and see the complete lack of push back and defensive awareness and the skill to implement it from Orr's time to Lidstrom's you would see that.

Instead there is some unwritten dogma that competition and the league always stays the same. Go to the best restaurant in Regina and then go to the best restaurants in Tor, Mont or Van, the level of competition simply has to be taken into consideration when taking about who is the best of all time IMO.

Sure we shouldn't punish Orr from playing in a weaker league but we also shouldn't punish Lidstrom for playing in an extremely strong one either. Context does come into the equation at some point if we want to have a serious look at it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If Orr only dominated his peers because the competition was so weak (and, presumably, Orr was simply more advanced, and anomaly, not superbly talented), why isn't Lidstrom able to dominate his peers like a 35-year-old, fat, Mario Lemieux did?

This gets trotted out all of the time. Mario dominated in a small sample size on one side of the puck. Lidstrom did more to help his team win in his age 35 season and was more valuable in doing so IMO.

Lidstrom has always been way more than his stats, while Mario brought very little to the game other than his stats, he was no Gretzky in the leadership department.

 

[Canadiens1958]

NHL Timeline

The degree of difficulty and push back from the opposition from that Mont game and Lidstrom's level of push back, virtually every game isn't even comparable. If you watch the video and see the complete lack of push back and defensive awareness and the skill to implement it from Orr's time to Lidstrom's you would see that.

Instead there is some unwritten dogma that competition and the league always stays the same. Go to the best restaurant in Regina and then go to the best restaurants in Tor, Mont or Van, the level of competition simply has to be taken into consideration when taking about who is the best of all time IMO.

Sure we shouldn't punish Orr from playing in a weaker league but we also shouldn't punish Lidstrom for playing in an extremely strong one either. Context does come into the equation at some point if we want to have a serious look at it.

The NHL timeline from 1917-18 to date,

Frank Nighbour played during the first NHL season, later playing against Eddie Shore, who later played against Syl Apps Sr. who later played against Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe who later played against Bobby Orr, Gilbert Perreault, Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque who later played against Nicklas Lidstrom who played against Steve Stamkos, Sidney Crosby. From 1917-18 to 2010-11 and continuing ad infinitum, with numerous variants. Through various eras rule changes, expansions, contractions, equipment systems, there is a simple truism the old competed against the young and the young competed against the old. Gordie Howe was able to play as an 19 year old against Syl Apps and as a 51 year old against Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque,

Why? If the game is so different or advanced could players compete in a fashion that links eras back to the start of the NHL?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This gets trotted out all of the time. Mario dominated in a small sample size on one side of the puck. Lidstrom did more to help his team win in his age 35 season and was more valuable in doing so IMO.

Lidstrom has always been way more than his stats, while Mario brought very little to the game other than his stats, he was no Gretzky in the leadership department.[/QUOTE]

I don't think this is true at all.

Gretzky may have been the Oiler's best player, but he wasn't close to their best leader.

I'm not sure if I've asked this of you before, but what would you're top 10 players of all-time look like? Its sounding like you may have Lidstrom ahead of Mario and maybe Orr. I know you feel the modern player is playing against the best competition. I respect your opinion and am not looking for an argument. My opinions have been changed considerably since being on this forum. Your view is one I need to consider as its different from almost all the posters who were here when I started.

 

[danincanada]

Simple definition of a PP. The man advantage was exploited per the situation that arose. No player alone or with team mates kills 100% of opposing PPs.1970-71 Bruins with Orr allowed 53 PPG during 336 penalties 84.23%, while scoring 25 SH goals, net consequence was 28 goals given up while killing penalties.

Wings with prime Lidstrom usually give-up around 55 goals with ~86% PK efficiency they score fewer SH goals, never yielding a net as low as 28 or even close.

Translation - Orr tried to intercept the pass from the point and took himself out of the play leaving a 4 on 2 advantage in front of his goalie. That resulted in Beliveau tapping in a loose puck. Orr was a huge part of his team being exploited so badly on this PK.

As mentioned earlier Orr was only 23 in this game, and playing defense in any era takes time to really learn, so it's not the end of the world but I think you guys can admit his positioning and defense did get exposed by the Canadiens at times in this game.

Discussions about Orr would be a lot clearer if he could have played a full career. I'd imagine watching Orr and Gretzky play each other and then seeing Lemieux come along near the end of Orr's career would have been fantastic to see. Orr's game could only get even more well rounded if he matured and stayed healthy so a young Gretzky/Lemiuex would be a great test for his defending skills.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Translation

Translation - Orr tried to intercept the pass from the point and took himself out of the play leaving a 4 on 2 advantage in front of his goalie. That resulted in Beliveau tapping in a loose puck. Orr was a huge part of his team being exploited so badly on this PK.

As mentioned earlier Orr was only 23 in this game, and playing defense in any era takes time to really learn, so it's not the end of the world but I think you guys can admit his positioning and defense did get exposed by the Canadiens at times in this game.

Discussions about Orr would be a lot clearer if he could have played a full career. I'd imagine watching Orr and Gretzky play each other and then seeing Lemieux come along near the end of Orr's career would have been fantastic to see. Orr's game could only get even more well rounded if he matured and stayed healthy so a young Gretzky/Lemiuex would be a great test for his defending skills.

Translation a skilled veteran point man made an excellent play to a veteran center who knew how to use every inch of ice.

Positioning is fluid. You may have perfect coverage but the opponent moves a step and you are vulnerable. Happens to every player. The difference is that if you look at game films as opposed to clips you would see the defense/offense cat and mouse game between players for the full length of the shift Shifts in Orr's era were in the 90-120 second length, Lidstrom's era 30-40 second length. Sustaining coverage short term vs long term is a totally different skill.Factoring shift length woul help your perspectives.

 

[danincanada]

Translation a skilled veteran point man made an excellent play to a veteran center who knew how to use every inch of ice.

Positioning is fluid. You may have perfect coverage but the opponent moves a step and you are vulnerable. Happens to every player. The difference is that if you look at game films as opposed to clips you would see the defense/offense cat and mouse game between players for the full length of the shift Shifts in Orr's era were in the 90-120 second length, Lidstrom's era 30-40 second length. Sustaining coverage short term vs long term is a totally different skill.Factoring shift length woul help your perspectives.

It wasn't some miraculous play by the Canadiens that took Orr out of position. I see an obvious play that should have the defender (Orr) making a much stronger attempt at either stopping that pass or staying in better position so he can be a factor in trying to defend the forward down low. Orr over committed badly and took himself right out of the play, leaving a 4 on 2 advantage in front of his net.

I believe this goal was scored :41 into an Esposito penalty so shift length isn't really a factor.

http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2009/11/5/1115711/habs-bruins-april-8-1971-a

 

[plusandminus]

I just read this on the wikipedia, regardin a defenceman's role offensively in icehockey:

"In the offensive zone, the defence skaters usually "play the blue line." It is their duty to keep the puck in the offensive zone by stopping it from crossing the blue line that demarcates where the offensive zone begins. Should the puck cross this line, the offense cannot touch the puck in their opponent's zone without stopping play (see offside). Defencemen must be quick to pass the puck around, helping their forwards to open up shooting lanes, or taking open shots themselves when they become available. The defence must also be able to skate quickly to cut off any breakaways, moving themselves back into the defensive zone ahead of the onrushing opponent."

I have bolded some parts. I think most people can agree that Lidstrom is very good at those things.

I wrote about these things some days/week ago.
* Lidstrom is great at keeping the puck in the offensive zone
* Lidstrom is very good at quickly pass the puck around
* Lidstrom is great at moving around in order to open up shooting lanes
* Lidstrom is great at valuing when to take a shot and when not to. He also has a very accurate shot
* Lidstrom is great at reading the play, able to skate quickly to cut off any breakaways

He doesn't shoot as hard as MacInnis, Iafrate or Chara. He isn't as flashy as Coffey. He doesn't hit like Scott Stevens. But he's pretty good at the key roles a defenceman have offensively. (How good were/are other players at those things listed?)
Plus that he's great at the transition play.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Orr was superbly talented. The point is that there are lots of superbly talented hockey players now so how do we know Orr would still be at the top of that list if he played today? No one really knows the answer to that which is why we bicker about it constantly.

So what you are saying is Orr was just basically ahead of his time: a superbly talented player playing in an age of only "moderately" talented players.

Think about it this way; Lidstrom is universally celebrated for his brain. Not his size, or strength, but his brain. His hockey sense is his single biggest tool as a defenseman. It is why he lasted so long. Take Niklas Lidstrom, add Raymond Bourque attitude, Coffey's skating and Bure's explosiveness, and you get Bobby Orr.

In a more bird's eye view of the situation, a lot of people see superstar talents as more than the sum of their individual skills...they have that "x" factor. Players have not all of a suddened learned to acquire/develop that "x" factor. A sliver of that factor is why Crosby has managed to dominate the league to the extent that he has. Plenty of players have come by with the toolsets of players like Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin...heck, the same reason some make the NHL and some do not could be why some players are legends, some are just stars, and others are just humdrum players,

Lidstrom just won the Norris at 41 so I don't understand the second part of your question.

Yeah, but it seems obvious to me that his competition is pretty weak. Do you really think Weber, Chara, and Green compare with Bourque, Chelios, and Coffey?

It is just a fluctuation; we don't have as many good defensemen nowadays. Lidstrom's best competition was when he started in the 90s. There are many reasons for that that I won't go in to; in any case it kind of seems to be resolving itself, as the past couple of years have seen a lot of young defensemen emerge as potential Norris-caliber talents.

Personally, Mario Lemieux is the most offensively talented player I've ever seen. At the same time, a player like Mario could not get away with floating like he did if he was a defenseman.

See, that is the thing. Mario Lemieux was so talented, he didn't have to play defense. He COULD float and still light up the league. He is the exception that darn well proves the rule. That is a man among boys.

Lidstrom must defend and play his position or he is going to look very bad. Meanwhile, Mario could float and often only played half the ice so even though he put up ridiculous offensive numbers I don't see it as being the same type of domination as what he did earlier in his career when he was more of a force overall.

The fact that Mario could "float", at the age of 35, coming off 3 years of no hockey and injuries, and still score at near a 2ppg pace in the middle of a clutch-and-grab NHL designed to hinder guys like him should clue people in to his greatness.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This gets trotted out all of the time. Mario dominated in a small sample size on one side of the puck. Lidstrom did more to help his team win in his age 35 season and was more valuable in doing so IMO.

Lidstrom has always been way more than his stats, while Mario brought very little to the game other than his stats, he was no Gretzky in the leadership department.[/QUOTE]

I don't think this is true at all.

Gretzky may have been the Oiler's best player, but he wasn't close to their best leader.

I'm not sure if I've asked this of you before, but what would you're top 10 players of all-time look like? Its sounding like you may have Lidstrom ahead of Mario and maybe Orr. I know you feel the modern player is playing against the best competition. I respect your opinion and am not looking for an argument. My opinions have been changed considerably since being on this forum. Your view is one I need to consider as its different from almost all the posters who were here when I started.

I do value longevity as well as peak and context and Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Lidstrom and Beliveau, Hull and Howe are definitely in the top 10.

That makes 7 and off the top of my head I could put any of 10 other guys there like Mikita, Makarov, Potvin, Bourque, Hasek, Roy.

I have a really hard time slotting players that I haven't seen and/or played in entirely different eras.

That's it off the top of my head.

Hopefully we will do another top 100, I wasn't around for the last one, and then I will sit down and do a definitive list.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The NHL timeline from 1917-18 to date,

Frank Nighbour played during the first NHL season, later playing against Eddie Shore, who later played against Syl Apps Sr. who later played against Maurice Richard, Gordie Howe who later played against Bobby Orr, Gilbert Perreault, Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque who later played against Nicklas Lidstrom who played against Steve Stamkos, Sidney Crosby. From 1917-18 to 2010-11 and continuing ad infinitum, with numerous variants. Through various eras rule changes, expansions, contractions, equipment systems, there is a simple truism the old competed against the young and the young competed against the old. Gordie Howe was able to play as an 19 year old against Syl Apps and as a 51 year old against Wayne Gretzky, Ray Bourque,

Why? If the game is so different or advanced could players compete in a fashion that links eras back to the start of the NHL?

The highlighted section is the only thing that is relevant in your post.

The fact that Howe played against Syl apps and Gretzky and Bourque only tells us that he played for a long time and nothing more.

Your inference that the league remains pretty constant throughout time just doesn't stand the test from what I have seen, early 70's till now or what I know about the hockey before then.

 

[Big Phil]

Jesus, I didn't know Bobby Orr had a bad game.

Interesting numbers from that series:

Bruins had 190 PIMs. In seven games, that's a load.

Orr had 5 goals and 7 assists.

Is it just me or is it a compliment to Orr that we continue to highlight Game 2 of the 1971 series vs. Montreal as a bad game for him? I mean, the guy had a "bad game" but he had 4 points in the game too. We should all be that lucky. You look at any all-time great and there is a game, or a single play where they look foolish. Gretzky coughing the puck up seconds before Yzerman scored the Game 7 OT winner in 1996. Lidstrom getting undressed by Forsberg in the 1996 playoffs. Mario was on the ice and didn't look very strong when David Volek scored the goal in 1993. So really should we emphasize Orr's 1971 performance that much? Considering he dominated in 1970 and 1972?

 

[OrrNumber4]

The highlighted section is the only thing that is relevant in your post.

The fact that Howe played against Syl apps and Gretzky and Bourque only tells us that he played for a long time and nothing more.

Your inference that the league remains pretty constant throughout time just doesn't stand the test from what I have seen, early 70's till now or what I know about the hockey before then.

I think the point is that the league changed, but not so much that superstars still couldn't be superstars.

That is why they are legends. Their talents transcend the era. Especially when we are talking about hockey in the modern era.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Skill Sets

I think the point is that the league changed, but not so much that superstars still couldn't be superstars.

That is why they are legends. Their talents transcend the era. Especially when we are talking about hockey in the modern era.

Add that the basic skill sets remain constant, almost eternal combined the ability to execute and be competitive is what defines players.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I do value longevity as well as peak and context and Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Lidstrom and Beliveau, Hull and Howe are definitely in the top 10.

That makes 7 and off the top of my head I could put any of 10 other guys there like Mikita, Makarov, Potvin, Bourque, Hasek, Roy.

I have a really hard time slotting players that I haven't seen and/or played in entirely different eras.

That's it off the top of my head.

Hopefully we will do another top 100, I wasn't around for the last one, and then I will sit down and do a definitive list.

Thanks for the repsonse.

Other than Makarov (and the absence of Shore & Harvey) that isn't a lot different from most others.

Funny, he's the unusual choice and he isn't exactly a modern era player.

I think its hard for everyone to slot players from different eras and/or that they haven't seen. Unfortunately, in this respect, the game has been around a long time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think the point is that the league changed, but not so much that superstars still couldn't be superstars.

That is why they are legends. Their talents transcend the era. Especially when we are talking about hockey in the modern era.

The level of change get underrated, for instance Gretzky and Lemiuex had their best seasons in their early 20's statistically.

The drop off in their stats, although small, indicate more of a change in the league than a drop off in their skills IMO.

The NHL was a vastly different landscape in 65, 73, 82, 92 and the last several years. the difference largely gets either ignored or a false premise of a drop off in top level talent (especially for defense man) is used wrongly IMO.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The level of change get underrated, for instance Gretzky and Lemiuex had their best seasons in their early 20's statistically.

The drop off in their stats, although small, indicate more of a change in the league than a drop off in their skills IMO.

Gretzky was still on pace for 190+ points at age 27 and his drop afterwards can much more logically be explained by getting traded to the Kings, a much less offensively gifted team.

Mario's best purely statistical season was also at 27, then his 23 year old season, followed by his 30 year old season.

In the end, do you honestly think it's merely a coincidence that scoring started to decline when improved goalie equipment and more importantly, butterfly, percentage playing goalies started replacing the standup, reflex goalies league wide in the late 80's and early 90's?
I certainly don't.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Different Landscape

The level of change get underrated, for instance Gretzky and Lemiuex had their best seasons in their early 20's statistically.

The drop off in their stats, although small, indicate more of a change in the league than a drop off in their skills IMO.

The NHL was a vastly different landscape in 65, 73, 82, 92 and the last several years. the difference largely gets either ignored or a false premise of a drop off in top level talent (especially for defense man) is used wrongly IMO.

And what would that different landscape be for each of the years listed be and the last several years?

 

[Hardyvan123]

And what would that different landscape be for each of the years listed be and the last several years?

65 is the era of the original 6 which would last for another 2 years and by 73 the league would have 16 teams and an even further dilution of overall talent with the WHA competing for players. With no increased stream of talent the league was quite diluted from 06 times.

82 is the beginning of the Gretzky era where he scored on average 200 points a year and many other players scored at an incredibly high rate. There was some influx of talent from both Europe and the US college system but both of these streams would not fully take place until the 90's and beyond.

In the late 80's and early 90's there was a considerable effort both in the US and Canada in producing elite players and systems to bring about a better more complete hockey player.

The biggest changes revolve around the increase in the number of teams in the NHL, 1st without increased streams of talent to pick from and later on the additions of non traditional Canadian players to bring on their teams.

At least in North America there was an increased focus on developing elite players, teams and systems in the late 80's and beyond where before there was a "more let the kids play attitude." Ernie "Punch" MacLean from the dominant New Westminster Bruins in the late 70's was quoted as saying that he loved kids with character and he could teach them to skate in 6 months which goes to tell the "level" of talent in the "W" back then.

In fact except for the intimidation factor the top teams in the OHL or WHL could compete with the weaker teams of the early 70's NHL IMO. That is how far the level of play and development of systems has gone since then.

This is especially true with the Canadians embarrassing showing in the late 80's at the world jr tourney, the year 88 from memory.

this is only the numerical changes and the streams of talent never mind all the rule changes and equipment and coaching ones as well.

Like I stated earlier one only has to watch video from Orr in the 70's or the famous Red Army Montreal game of 75 to see how slow the players and pace was back then to the 80's, 90's and to today.