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

[Sens Rule]

I've watched the NHL since 1985. I was not saying Crosby or ovechkin have better careers, but they have better peak seasons than ANY of Lidstroms.

In order to be top 10 or 15 all time... I think you need to be the best player in the world or very close. Lidstrom or Brodeur never were. Bourque was the best player for a year. IMO anyway. Lidstrom is unbelievable, one of the top 5 d-men ever and a top 20 all-time player... But to me he is a lot closer to 20 then 10 and Brodeur is not even close to top 20.

Wow, how long did you watch hockey? You are comparing an all time great to Crosby and Ovechkin, really? Crosby and Ovechkin are off to very good starts but who knows if Crosby can ever come back from his injury and OV has significantly cooled off. They need to do what they are doing now for 10 years to be compared with Jagr, Lidström etc.

If you can't see that Lidström is in the same class as Jagr and Hasek then I'm sorry but you don't know how good Lidström is/was.

Defensemen are not considered for the Hart, that is a fact. The only recent exception is Pronger but that was a special year with certain circumstances.

Lidström has had those peak years. There were years where he was the absolute best and maybe only Jagr could compete.

 

[reaper]

Totally agree on Brodeur.

Guys like Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux are all definately ahead of Lidström. After that top tier it gets very difficult to rank people.

The last HOH list had Harvey at 6, Shore at 8 and Borque at 10. I think Lidström matches up well to those guys. Last time Lidström was #17 but would likely advance a few positions if the list was redone.

People will never agree on ranking of players but I think it's safe to say that Lidström is top-15 all time which is an amazing feat.

 

[Hammer Time]

Among blueliners, Lidstrom is probably 5th all time (Orr, Harvey, Shore, and Bourque above him), which, unless you include a disproportionate number of D-men in the top 10, wouldn't make him a top 10 player. To place him in the top 10, one needs to show that Lidstrom was better than Bourque, and has enough longevity to compensate for Shore's dominant peak. It's possible if he keeps playing at a high level for a few more years, but most likely he ends up somewhere around 15th. Which is an amazing accomplishment given how much Canadians dominate all-time lists (I would only rank Hasek higher than Lidstrom among Europeans.)

 

[Pear Juice]

What's up with this obsession with single years? I am very confused at this reasoning. Since when is it required to at one point be the absolute best player in the league to become an all-time great? I would argue that Doug Harvey is in the exact same position. He was to my knowledge never considered the league's best player, being overshadowed by the likes of Richard and Béliveau.

Note I am not trying to criticize Doug Harvey, but with your reasoning, you really should for the sake of consistency of your argument.

Being the consensus best defenseman of a 10-year period is to me very much more impressive than having a single Hart Trophy. A Hart Trophy can be an anomaly. 13 nearly-consecutive selections for the 1st (10) or 2nd (3) All-Star team, is not. How in the world could this not be considered dominant?

 

[begbeee]

I would say Lidstrom. Dont get me wrong I think Bourque was better player but in terms of career... There are not only individual awards.
Nick is 4-time SC winner compared to 1 Ray´s win. It´s not fault of Ray that he didnt win more, but when all is done, then it counts what do you have in your trophy-room.
Nick played on four best-on-best Olympics compared to one Ray´s disappointing participation. Ok, Ray played in three Canada Cups IIRC compared to two participations of Nick in World Cups. Nick is also a World Championship winner what means he is in Triple Gold Club.

Nick Lidstrom has been involved in more hockey tournaments and playoffs, usualy with successful ending for him. I am sure Marcel Dionne (if he was true player) would sacrifice maybe 700 points for one win in SC. From this point of view career of Nick Lidstrom is superior to Bourque´s one.

 

[Sens Rule]

Except many people think Harvey was the best playeron
Those Habs dynasty teams. In fact that seems to be the consensus among knowledgeable fans. The "obsession" with single years comes from what this thread is about!!!! The top ten EVER!!!! This isn't a HHOF debate or something, it is the best of the best EVER!! And of the candidates for top 10, 15 or 20... Lidstrom has among the best prolonged high peak level play... Maybe only surpassed by Howe and Bourque. However he also has the most glaring lack of truly dominant single or handful of seasons of all of them.

What were the best 30 single seasons by a defenseman EVER? Does Lidstrom have ANY of those top 30 single seasons? I really don't know if he has a single one of them.

Lidstrom was the most important member of the Wings cup years... But also he did not stand out as the clear, unanimous best player on those teams... In a top 10 All-time caliber way. In my opinion.

What's up with this obsession with single years? I am very confused at this reasoning. Since when is it required to at one point be the absolute best player in the league to become an all-time great? I would argue that Doug Harvey is in the exact same position. He was to my knowledge never considered the league's best player, being overshadowed by the likes of Richard and Béliveau.

Note I am not trying to criticize Doug Harvey, but with your reasoning, you really should for the sake of consistency of your argument.

Being the consensus best defenseman of a 10-year period is to me very much more impressive than having a single Hart Trophy. A Hart Trophy can be an anomaly. 13 nearly-consecutive selections for the 1st (10) or 2nd (3) All-Star team, is not. How in the world could this not be considered dominant?

 

[Furback*]

Well no one will argue Orr is #1 d man in NHL History, #2 in my eyes is Doug Harvey, played in a era where d men did not put up points, won 7 Norris and 6 cups,#3 Eddie Shore is next, winning 4 hart tropheys for a d man is unheard of, the Norris was not around back then, plus Shore's mean streak is legandary, after that I think its close between Ray Bourque, Nik Lidstrom and Dennis Potvan, so in my eyes Lidstrom is top 6 in d men all time and top 20 for players, dont think he is top 10, but very close.

 

[Pear Juice]

Except many people think Harvey was the best playeron
Those Habs dynasty teams. In fact that seems to be the consensus among knowledgeable fans. The "obsession" with single years comes from what this thread is about!!!! The top ten EVER!!!! This isn't a HHOF debate or something, it is the best of the best EVER!! And of the candidates for top 10, 15 or 20... Lidstrom has among the best prolonged high peak level play... Maybe only surpassed by Howe and Bourque. However he also has the most glaring lack of truly dominant single or handful of seasons of all of them.

What were the best 30 single seasons by a defenseman EVER? Does Lidstrom have ANY of those top 30 single seasons? I really don't know if he has a single one of them.

Lidstrom was the most important member of the Wings cup years... But also he did not stand out as the clear, unanimous best player on those teams... In a top 10 All-time caliber way. In my opinion.

Well, I'm not necessarily arguing that Lidström is a top-10 player. I am just arguing that one can be without having one truly dominant season. Besides, I do think Lidström had a dominant season.

I respect your opinion but I'd just like to point out that:

A) There are tons of knowledgable people who list e.g. Maurice Richard or Jean Béliveau higher than Doug Harvey. The old Top-100 list from 2008 has Richard at 6, Béliveau at 8 and Harvey at 9. The one from 2009 has Harvey at 6, Béliveau at 7 and Richard at 9. Evidently, there is no such thing as a consensus best player of the 50s Habs. The differences are slim.

B) There are tons of people who quote Lidström as the best player of those Stanley Cup winning teams. He is for example listed higher than Steve Yzerman on both lists, but lower than Dominik Hasek who was on for the ride for especially the '02 Cup but also the '08 Cup. In fact, Lidström has won a Conn Smythe trophy (interestingly in '02), stating that he actually was decidedly the most important player on a Cup-winning team.

C) In 2002, Lidström won the Norris trophy, tied for the lead in points for defensemen and was a 1st team All-Star. His team won the President's trophy and the Stanley Cup with Lidström winning the Conn Smythe trophy. I dare you to argue that is not a dominant season. It is not a Bobby Orr season, sure, but it's one hell of a season, I highly doubt that it is not a top-30 season from a defenseman.

My mother wasn't born when Harvey entered the league so obviously I have no personal experience, but if you'd mind to educate me; in what seasons did Doug Harvey dominate the league to such an extent as to warrant a top-10 spot, given that Lidströms 2002 season is not enough? His career seems a lot like Lidströms to me. Never the biggest headlines, but always the cornerstone of a dynasty.

This is not arguing Lidström ahead of Harvey. They're seem very comparable in my eyes.

 

[toob]

I have talked about this already a lot on the Wings forum, so I'll only say this here: Few could replace peak Lidstrom, replacing 09-11 Lidstrom is a different question. Of course the 09-11 Wings weren't that great teams, so maybe that makes your point.

part of that has to do with the (slight) decline that of Zetterberg and Datsyuk as well and also injuries in 09-11

From 1997 to 2001 lidstrom was easily the best player on the red wings, comparing him to yzerman based on point totals is silly. From 1997 to 2001, lidstrom was the best defenseman in the league, yzrman wasnt even a top 7 forward.

nobody is favoring Yzerman over Lidstrom off comparing point totals
that would be unfair to Yzerman a forward because Lidstrom's point totals inflate his offensive contribution like most defensemen (he isnt a special exception like Orr or Coffey)

Yzerman was just the better player from 97 to 00 per season basis
and was better when actually playing until 02

and comparing forward and defensemen ranks as if there is some correspondence in a positional list to an overall list is a terrible way to look at it (that is even if we accept your rankings)

look at who was forward and who was defensemen for starters

Lidstrom was the best player on the Red Wings from the 1997-98 season until the 2007-08 season, with the exception of the 2003-04 season.

Yzerman, Fedorov, and maybe even Shanahan pre lockout and Datsyuk and Zetterberg post lockout all have a good case to be the best Wing player during many seasons in that time frame you gave

after 02 i definitely think Fedorov was the best in 03 and Zetterberg in 08 for starters

Many consider Yzerman a "greater" Red Wing than Lidstrom - b/c Yzerman was an icon, but no knowledgeable Red Wing fan would think Yzerman is a better player than Lidstrom.

of course they would
im almost certain if you were to poll Detroit fans who have watched a lot of both Yzerman's and Lidstrom's careers (including Yzerman in his prime) as to who the BETTER PLAYER is the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of Yzerman

only on hfboards (where award counting without contextualization seems to be a big thing) have i seen it suggested with any frequency that Lidstrom is a better player than Yzerman

 

[FinProspects]

Two things that keep Lidas outside of the top10 (maybe even top15) IMO are:
-No trophies in 90´s.
-No Hart trophy

There were some amazing d-men in the 90´s like Bourque, Leetch, Chelios, MacInnis, Pronger, Blake etc etc. Lidas couldnt win a single Norris on that decade. The truth is that the amount of quality d-men in the 00´s wasnt nowhere near compared to 90´s. Niedermayer, Zubov, Pronger, Chara, Gonchar etc.

The Hart thing is a bit more complex, cause it´s very rare that defender wins that award, but I think Lidas should have won at least won Hart in the 00´s.

But all in all, he is a top20 player of all time. That´s astonishing accomplishment for a European defender.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Two things that keep Lidas outside of the top10 (maybe even top15) IMO are:
-No trophies in 90´s.
-No Hart trophy

There were some amazing d-men in the 90´s like Bourque, Leetch, Chelios, MacInnis, Pronger, Blake etc etc. Lidas couldnt win a single Norris on that decade. The truth is that the amount of quality d-men in the 00´s wasnt nowhere near compared to 90´s. Niedermayer, Zubov, Pronger, Chara, Gonchar etc.

While it is true that he didn't win a Norris in that decade, I think that had as much to do with his style being subtle as it did with players like Blake winning.

Lidstrom simply wasn't recognized early on because he wasn't physical and laying out the occasional highlight hit or end to end rush.

Blake's Norris, for example, win has to be one of the weakest in the history of the award.

The Hart thing is a bit more complex, cause it´s very rare that defender wins that award, but I think Lidas should have won at least won Hart in the 00´s.

But all in all, he is a top20 player of all time. That´s astonishing accomplishment for a European defender.

This keeps being brought up and I'll say the same thing again:

Do you know how many defensemen finalists have been nominated for the Hart during Lidstrom's ENTIRE career?

One.

Pronger who won in a weak year for forwards where Jagr would almost certainly have won the award if he hadn't missed time.

That is it. No other defensemen have even been a finalist in the last 20 years, if I recall correctly.

So as far as I am concerned, the bias against defensemen currently being shown in Hart voting completely invalidates this as a knock on Lidstrom.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

of course they would
im almost certain if you were to poll Detroit fans who have watched a lot of both Yzerman's and Lidstrom's careers (including Yzerman in his prime) as to who the BETTER PLAYER is the results would be overwhelmingly in favor of Yzerman

only on hfboards (where award counting without contextualization seems to be a big thing) have i seen it suggested with any frequency that Lidstrom is a better player than Yzerman

Perhaps you have more experience being a Red Wings fan than I do (30+ years) but Lidstrom is easily recognized by Detroit fans as a "better player" than Yzerman.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Perhaps you have more experience being a Red Wings fan than I do (30+ years) but Lidstrom is easily recognized by Detroit fans as a "better player" than Yzerman.

I think that this is a more defensible argument than the one being referred to here. People tend to forget that many Detroit fans wanted to run Stvie Y out of town earleir in hsi career.

As great as Stevie Y was Lidstrom has been the better player hands down during their days in Detroit, especially when we look at regular season and playoffs.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I will try to keep things simple , if I started a team tomorrow and had to take a defenseman ( guaranteed same career ) , I would take Larry Robinson ahead of Lidstrom.Big Bird is the weakest D I can confidently say I would take on my team ahead of him.

But sure , Lidstrom is higher on the ranking list , because ranking list are pretty much based on what you see on paper , which is fine.

( hypocritical of me since I did had the choice between them in the ATD and took Lidstrom , but that's because I knew in the ATD you win on paper , just like the ranking list. )

From my years of playing hockey , I can't deny the importance I put on a calming presence like Potvin , Shore or Robinson , and Harvey , Orr and Bourque were just better.Kelly I don't know , h's one of the player I have the least search for , I will look into it soon as it's pretty shameful.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

For a decade, Lidstrom was not only the best all-around defenseman in the league, but literally both the best defensively and the best offensively.

To not think that is utter "dominance" is utterly asinine. Oh, and he was also the best defenseman in the playoffs during this time as well. That's like giving Jagr, Fedorov's two-way play, and amazingly even better longevity and playoff performances. Not dominant? Give me a break. Those who do not think he dominated are still simply stuck thinking a defenseman can not dominate without physical play.

Lidstrom is literally the best scoring 'defense-first' defenseman of all-time. Wherever Harvey is, Lidstrom should be close by.

That puts him anywhere from #8 to #12, IMO.

Even in Lidstrom's best year, 2006, I would have taken Jagr, Thornton, Crosby and Ovechkin over him. There's a reason he's never been top 3 in Hart voting, a reason that goes beyond the team he plays on, he's never been good enough at any given time to be seen as a top 3 player. Top 4 and top 5 quite a bit, which is amazing, but it just means he's not a top 20 player ever. He's just not.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I will try to keep things simple , if I started a team tomorrow and had to take a defenseman ( guaranteed same career ) , I would take Larry Robinson ahead of Lidstrom.Big Bird is the weakest D I can confidently say I would take on my team ahead of him.

But sure , Lidstrom is higher on the ranking list , because ranking list are pretty much based on what you see on paper , which is fine.

( hypocritical of me since I did had the choice between them in the ATD and took Lidstrom , but that's because I knew in the ATD you win on paper , just like the ranking list. )

From my years of playing hockey , I can't deny the importance I put on a calming presence like Potvin , Shore or Robinson , and Harvey , Orr and Bourque were just better.Kelly I don't know , h's one of the player I have the least search for , I will look into it soon as it's pretty shameful.

I honestly think Robinson and Coffey were better to be honest. Now that I think of it I have atleast 7 defenseman ranked ahead of Lidstrom... Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Potvin, Coffey, Robinson, Kelly... all because of the fact they were each very decisively better players in their prime than Lidstrom. Prime has to matter more than longevity and consistency in the long run IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What's up with this obsession with single years? I am very confused at this reasoning. Since when is it required to at one point be the absolute best player in the league to become an all-time great? I would argue that Doug Harvey is in the exact same position. He was to my knowledge never considered the league's best player, being overshadowed by the likes of Richard and Béliveau.

Note I am not trying to criticize Doug Harvey, but with your reasoning, you really should for the sake of consistency of your argument.

Being the consensus best defenseman of a 10-year period is to me very much more impressive than having a single Hart Trophy. A Hart Trophy can be an anomaly. 13 nearly-consecutive selections for the 1st (10) or 2nd (3) All-Star team, is not. How in the world could this not be considered dominant?

Agreed. Seriously, ask people who the best player of the last decade was. Almost everyone will say Lidstrom. A few will say Brodeur. And yet Lidstrom isn't top 15 and Brodeur "isn't close" to top 20? How bad do people think players today are?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Two things that keep Lidas outside of the top10 (maybe even top15) IMO are:
-No trophies in 90´s.
-No Hart trophy

There were some amazing d-men in the 90´s like Bourque, Leetch, Chelios, MacInnis, Pronger, Blake etc etc. Lidas couldnt win a single Norris on that decade. The truth is that the amount of quality d-men in the 00´s wasnt nowhere near compared to 90´s. Niedermayer, Zubov, Pronger, Chara, Gonchar etc.

The Hart thing is a bit more complex, cause it´s very rare that defender wins that award, but I think Lidas should have won at least won Hart in the 00´s.

But all in all, he is a top20 player of all time. That´s astonishing accomplishment for a European defender.

Lidstrom isn't in my top 10 either, but who cares that he didn't win a trophy in the 1990s, when he won, what, 8 of them (7 Norrises, 1 Conn Smythe) afterwards?

Doug Harvey didn't win a Hart (or a trophy in the 90s... heh) either.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I will try to keep things simple , if I started a team tomorrow and had to take a defenseman ( guaranteed same career ) , I would take Larry Robinson ahead of Lidstrom.Big Bird is the weakest D I can confidently say I would take on my team ahead of him.

But sure , Lidstrom is higher on the ranking list , because ranking list are pretty much based on what you see on paper , which is fine.

( hypocritical of me since I did had the choice between them in the ATD and took Lidstrom , but that's because I knew in the ATD you win on paper , just like the ranking list. )

From my years of playing hockey , I can't deny the importance I put on a calming presence like Potvin , Shore or Robinson , and Harvey , Orr and Bourque were just better.Kelly I don't know , h's one of the player I have the least search for , I will look into it soon as it's pretty shameful.

I'm not sure I understand. You're using the "calming presence" argument against Lidstrom? If there is anything Lidstrom was absolutely elite at, it was at being that "calming presence." I'd absolutely take his ability to slow down a game to his level over any defenseman in history, except perhaps Harvey.

 

[BubbaBoot]

I think Lidstrom's playoff career hardware edges him over Bourque.

But this may say more about the organization than the individual feats and abilities of these two greats.

I'm a Bruins fan from way back, (47 yrs or so) and I saw Bourque throughout his career. He was a helluva player who carried the B's on his shoulders in the playoffs, (if you thought Chara played alot of minutes, Bourque literaly played half the game on a regular basis)....but there just wasn't much quality depth after the first two lines and defensive pairings.

It was frustrating because is was so obvious as to what the opponent's plans were.....Run Bourque and piss off Neely....

During their best near miss Cup years there were players that didn't produce as expected and it cost them against a couple of Oilers teams and a destiny bound Pittsburgh.

This is what led to a lot of frustration and gave creedence to the Cheap Jeremey Jacobs legacy for years.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Agreed. Seriously, ask people who the best player of the last decade was. Almost everyone will say Lidstrom. A few will say Brodeur. And yet Lidstrom isn't top 15 and Brodeur "isn't close" to top 20? How bad do people think players today are?

Well, I think the issue is that you can't really approach it like that. I mean take this:

The top point scorer of the 20s: Cy Denneny, 30s: Marty Barry/Busher Jackson, 40s: Doug Bentley, 50s: Gordie Howe, 60s: Stan Mikita, 70s: Phil Esposito, 80s: Wayne Gretzky, 90s: Jaromir Jagr, 00s: Joe Thornton

Best 10 scorers in history? Some of those guys would obviously be on the list, others eh not so much. Point being, talent doesn't come neatly distributed by decade.

On a different but still somewhat related note, Lidstrom might be the best player of the last decade. But I have a hard time saying he was the best player in the league at any one point over his career. I'm hesitant really to call a D-man the best player in the league, period, except for a blatant case like Orr and I think that hesitation is shared with quite a few observers actually.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Even in Lidstrom's best year, 2006, I would have taken Jagr, Thornton, Crosby and Ovechkin over him. There's a reason he's never been top 3 in Hart voting, a reason that goes beyond the team he plays on, he's never been good enough at any given time to be seen as a top 3 player. Top 4 and top 5 quite a bit, which is amazing, but it just means he's not a top 20 player ever. He's just not.

It's becoming obvious you really care little for defense - and points are all that matter.

Rod Langway was nominated for the Hart for playing similar defense but with far less points.

I can understand not valuing defensive play in forwards that much, but it seems ridiculous to disregard it with actual defenseman.

Defensively, for an entire decade, Lidstrom was Mario Lemieux. Less than a handful of players in history have been on a level with him.

 

[Pear Juice]

I do believe that there are two different standards applied here. One for Lidström, and one for Harvey. They seem so extremely comparable to me. If Lidström cannot be top 20 because he lacks peak dominance over the rest of the league, then neither can Harvey. Harvey appears to be consensus top-10 (probably rightfully so, I would argue), but is it because he revolutionized his position? I see no dominant season. I see no pan-position dominance over the rest of the league. I see no Hart Trophies. I see no Conn Smythes/Retro Conn Smythes. I see LOTS of Norris trophies, LOTS of All-Star selections, LOTS of points but not extreme amounts (think Orr/Coffey), LOTS of team success on a great team and LOTS of quiet praise in the shade of other greats.

Save for the Conn Smythe, doesn't this sound remarkably lot like Lidström? The only reasoning I can see as to why one would separate the two by 10-20 positions would be that Doug Harvey simply was, through visual inspection, a better hockey player. I would absolutely accept that argument if it was compelling, but I believe very few in here can make that claim.

Valuing peak highly is common and generally accepted, but then it has to be applied in a consistant fashion. If I'd value peak performance very strongly, I would probably put Denis Potvin at #2, ahead of Harvey, Lidström and Bourque.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have Harvey ahead of Lidstrom for a couple of reasons.

1) He appears to have dominated his peers more than Lidstrom. He was basically the runaway best defenseman every single season of his prime, except the one year when he was injured. Lidstrom wasn't quite this dominant over his peers.

2) People who saw Harvey seem to think he was more dominant than Bourque or Lidstrom.

3) From what limited material I read from the 50s, it appears Harvey was generally thought to have surpassed Shore. Though, I would like to see more than the couple of sources that I did see.

From a skills standpoint, I think Harvey and Lidstrom were very similar but Harvey was "perfect," while Lidstrom was perfect except for the lack of a physical game. In most cases, it doesn't matter, but in a very limited set of situations, this is a disadvantage for Lidstrom. Red Wings fans have posted that Lidstrom's only weakness was handing big, physical forwards in front of the net - Harvey didn't have this weakness.

Is it enough to separate them by 10-20 spots? Certainly not in my opinion. But it's enough to separate them by 5-8 spots IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's becoming obvious you really care little for defense - and points are all that matter.

Rod Langway was nominated for the Hart for playing similar defense but with far less points.

I can understand not valuing defensive play in forwards that much, but it seems ridiculous to disregard it with actual defense man.

Defensively, for an entire decade, Lidstrom was Mario Lemieux. Less than a handful of players in history have been on a level with him.

You beat me to the punch here.

Maybe IV is more of a stats guy than an investigative guy, like most people who vote for the hart BTW.

Now it makes sense that the guy who most helps his team win is 1st a G, who is very rarely the winner and then a Damn who plays more minutes and has more influence on the outcome of a game than a forward in terms of actual time on ice to make an impact.

For a variety of reasons, maybe the fact that there are individual awards for both G and D, voters have taken for the most part in voting the top 3 scorers in the league every year for a while now.

For people to not be able to see this and claim that Lidstrom is nowhere near the top player in the league is just plain lazy IMO.