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

[Pear Juice]

He's been on the closest thing to a modern day dynasty for 15 years, and has never separated himself from another defenseman any given year, nor has he been a top 3 player any given year.

Uhm? He has been the consensus best defenseman for 7 years. The consensus top-4 defenseman for 13 years. Nobody else in his era comes even remarkably close to halfway there. How in the whole wide world is that not separating himself from other defensemen?

For atleast 5 years in the 80's, Paul Coffey was a better player than anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux. That to me says he's a better player than Lidstrom. My main criteria for judging players all-time is their best 5 years, and simply how good of a player were they compared to everyone else.

Which 5 years would that be?

 

[Epsilon]

That "never separated himself from any other defenseman in any given year" crack is pretty hilarious when one looks at the Norris trophy voting for 2000-01, 2005-06, and 2007-08.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Uhm? He has been the consensus best defenseman for 7 years. The consensus top-4 defenseman for 13 years. Nobody else in his era comes even remarkably close to halfway there. How in the whole wide world is that not separating himself from other defensemen?

Which 5 years would that be?

I said any given year, my point is part of the reason why he's consistently that good is he's consistently on an amazing team. The one year his team gets injured he has 49 points and doesn't look as dominant defensively, coincidence? I don't think so.

I don't see how he is a top 20 player that's all. 20-30? That's likely good enough for someone who has never been a top 3 player in any given year, because there are more than 25 players who have been for more than one year, and also have some longevity and awards of their own, that is my point.

 

[tjcurrie]

No I'm a Leafs fan. I understand how amazing Lidstrom is, I've probably watched the guy play more games than any other player in the NHL today. Yes he is the best defenseman of his time...the only problem is, I really can't honestly say he's a whole lot better than Pronger. I can't say he's been a top 3 player in the game, Robinson has. Robinson in his prime was simply better than Lidstrom was in his. Very close though between them, but Coffey is ahead IMO. The only person I've seen who apparently judges Coffey the same way I always have is plusandminus. He was better defensively than forwards who I honestly don't even think were as good as him offensively in the 80's, I'm talking players like Stastny, Savard, etc...basically everyone except Gretzky and Lemieux.

Since Stastny outscored EVERYONE in the 80s besides Gretzky, you can't tell me Coffey was better offensively. I wonder how many points Stastny would have had playing on a team like Edmonton too ?

If we take a step back and look at Lidstrom, or at least most players for that matter, place them on a stacked team and they have a better chance of succeeding. Doesnt mean I dont think highly of Lidstrom, but it's something that isnt absurd to consider. But if we're do that with Lidstrom, then we have to do that with Coffey too. Coffey was fortunate to be on great teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh and Lidstrom has been fortunate as well. Both were major contributers though so it does work both ways.

As far as offensive numbers, you can't compare. Coffey was a one dimensional player in a high scoring era.

Saying who's better really depends on what you value more. Strictly offense, or an all-round game.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

That "never separated himself from any other defenseman in any given year" crack is pretty hilarious when one looks at the Norris trophy voting for 2000-01, 2005-06, and 2007-08.

We can look at the Norris trophy votes for tons of years and say they separated themselves cleanly from other defenseman, we can also say that even moreso with their play/stats as well. He's been consistently, the best defensman of his time. He has never in any given year, been easily or by far the best defenseman in the league, understood?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Since Stastny outscored EVERYONE in the 80s besides Gretzky, you can't tell me Coffey was better offensively. I wonder how many points Stastny would have had playing on a team like Edmonton too ?

If we take a step back and look at Lidstrom, or at least most players for that matter, place them on a stacked team and they have a better chance of succeeding. Doesnt mean I dont think highly of Lidstrom, but it's something that isnt absurd to consider. But if we're do that with Lidstrom, then we have to do that with Coffey too. Coffey was fortunate to be on great teams like Edmonton and Pittsburgh and Lidstrom has been fortunate as well.

As far as offensive numbers, you can't compare. Coffey was a one dimensional player in a high scoring era.

Saying who's better really depends on what you value more. Strictly offense, or an all-round game.

Since Gretzky outscored everyone in the 90's, you can't tell me Lemieux was better offensively. Yeah ok. Paul Coffey is, and was, the best player in the 80's not named Lemieux or Gretzky, and Gretzky benefitted from Coffey almost as much as the other way around. It's like Orr and Esposito, except I actually consider Coffey to be a better hockey player than Esposito. Coffey gets underrated, the first Gretzky like season Lemieux had was with Coffey. Jeez wonder why that is.

 

[Epsilon]

We can look at the Norris trophy votes for tons of years and say they separated themselves cleanly from other defenseman, we can also say that even moreso with their play/stats as well. He's been consistently, the best defensman of his time. He has never in any given year, been easily or by far the best defenseman in the league, understood?

He was easily, by far, the best defenseman in the league in 2007-08, just to use the most clear example. Or do you actually think anyone was close to him that season?

 

[tjcurrie]

Since Gretzky outscored everyone in the 90's, you can't tell me Lemieux was better offensively. Yeah ok. Paul Coffey is, and was, the best player in the 80's not named Lemieux or Gretzky, and Gretzky benefitted from Coffey almost as much as the other way around. It's like Orr and Esposito, except I actually consider Coffey to be a better hockey player than Esposito. Coffey gets underrated, the first Gretzky like season Lemieux had was with Coffey. Jeez wonder why that is.

Paul ? Is that you ?

Coffey played 691 games in the 1980s and had 893 points.
Stastny played 709 games in the 1980s and had 1024 points.
Pretty sure Coffey wasn't gonna score 131 points if he played another 18 games.

Using the Gretzky-Lemieux comparison in the 1990s is ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about hockey knows Lemieux had major health issues and played about 350 games less than Gretzky in that decade. He never even played the whole decade. Whereas in Stastny and Coffey's case, they both started the same time and played pretty much the same amount of games. Thanks for playing though.

Did Coffey help with the offense wherever he went ? Obviously. That's not what we're arguing here. Tell us something we don't know. Though Lemieux's numbers were already on the rise before Coffey arrived and he had 37 pts in 18 games before Coffey arrived that season so I'm sure he woulda been fine without.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Since Gretzky outscored everyone in the 90's, you can't tell me Lemieux was better offensively. Yeah ok. Paul Coffey is, and was, the best player in the 80's not named Lemieux or Gretzky, and Gretzky benefitted from Coffey almost as much as the other way around. It's like Orr and Esposito, except I actually consider Coffey to be a better hockey player than Esposito. Coffey gets underrated, the first Gretzky like season Lemieux had was with Coffey. Jeez wonder why that is.

I see Coffey with 3 first team and 3 second team All-Star selections in the 80's.

I see Bourque with 6 first team and 4 second team selections.

I never even thought to compare Coffey to Espo.

 

[Stonefly]

He was easily, by far, the best defenseman in the league in 2007-08, just to use the most clear example. Or do you actually think anyone was close to him that season?

Here's where the strength of competition argument comes back to bite you.
Runner up - Dion Phaneuf, and we all know how people feel about him here at HF boards.

 

[tjcurrie]

Here's where the strength of competition argument comes back to bite you.
Runner up - Dion Phaneuf, and we all know how people feel about him here at HF boards.

Phaneuf was runner-up in voting, but Lidstrom also crushed the likes of Chris Pronger,Zdeno Chara, and Mr.Offense Mike Green. Sergei Zubov would have been at least in the running had he not missed 36 games too but Lidstrom likely still wins. No exactly slouches he was up against.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He's been on the closest thing to a modern day dynasty for 15 years, and has never separated himself from another defenseman any given year, nor has he been a top 3 player any given year. People questioning whether I'm just judging on offense alone... no, obviously you judge by the best combination of both, and all the defenseman I mentioned were a better combination of both in their primes and were at some point a top 3 player in the game. People talk about Coffey's defense, and showed me an example of how he was a minus 5 after his first few years or something, well yeah that also includes 10+ years after his prime in a more defensive league, where his not so great defense actually started to matter more (kind of like Gretzky, -67 after his Edmonton years).

For atleast 5 years in the 80's, Paul Coffey was a better player than anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux. That to me says he's a better player than Lidstrom. My main criteria for judging players all-time is their best 5 years, and simply how good of a player were they compared to everyone else.

I don't need my players to play all 82 games in a year for it to count, I use the best combination of what I have and can watch, scoring finishes, adjusted stats, adjusted +/-, linemates (give or take 5-10 points if I feel it's necessary) competition (in both senses, their challengers for finishes, and literally who they're playing against on a regular basis) playoffs, etc... I don't include players before the 06 era in my rankings at all...far too different to be compared...anyways, basically as great as Lidstrom is (I've rarely missed a Detroit playoff game since the lockout, and I can tell with my own eyes that Lidstrom is/was the best defenseman in the world, I don't need any stats) he is just overrated plain and simple.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

How is Coffey the best player behind the 2 you mentioned in the 80's yet he only got 2 of his 3 Norris trophies in the 80's? (85-86)

Also aside from 84, 85 in the playoffs when he was plus 47, he was Minus 5 and that was for a couple of Stanley cup teams as well.

Now either the voters got it wrong or a guy with even half decent defense would have won more Norris trophies with the kind of stats Coffey was putting up at the time.

Coffey was an outstanding offensive Dman but his defense was worse than average and he quite simply isn't even close to Lidstrom territory IMO.

He also had the luxury of playing with both Edmonton and Pittsburgh in run and gun offenses with possibly the 2 most gifted offensive players of all time. sure maybe he puts up 90% of the same totals playing for say the Canucks but maybe not, it's certainly open to debate.

We could also look at adjusted stats but maybe he will be called an outlier as well?

 

[Rhiessan71]

We could also look at adjusted stats but maybe he will be called an outlier as well?

No but he definitely benefited from playing with two of the most extreme outliers in the history of the game

However, the point being made and one of the few things that holds Lidstrom back in any of these debates is lack of a definitive clearly dominate peak.
Bourque, by comparison, not only played longer but ALSO had a much more dominant peak including a couple of top 3 finishes for the Hart.
Lidstrom has been good to very good for a very, very long time but he was never quite great for any real length of time.

While not having that real high peak doesn't hurt him against most players, once you start getting into the top 10-20, it does start to matter.

With Bourque and even Coffey, you can look back and say...yes they were amongst the top 2-5 players in the entire league in this year or that year.
You can't do that with Lidstrom. No doubt you could say he has been in the top 6-15 in the league every year for most of his career but he just never cracked into the very top.
Even Pronger out peaked him.

 

[Gobias Industries]

No but he definitely benefited from playing with two of the most extreme outliers in the history of the game

However, the point being made and one of the few things that holds Lidstrom back in any of these debates is lack of a definitive clearly dominate peak.
Bourque, by comparison, not only played longer but ALSO had a much more dominant peak including a couple of top 3 finishes for the Hart.
Lidstrom has been good to very good for a very, very long time but he was never quite great for any real length of time.

While not having that real high peak doesn't hurt him against most players, once you start getting into the top 10-20, it does start to matter.

With Bourque and even Coffey, you can look back and say...yes they were amongst the top 2-5 players in the entire league in this year or that year.
You can't do that with Lidstrom. No doubt you could say he has been in the top 6-15 in the league every year for most of his career but he just never cracked into the very top.
Even Pronger out peaked him.

This is exactly how I feel about Lidstrom...exactly..

 

[tjcurrie]

No but he definitely benefited from playing with two of the most extreme outliers in the history of the game

However, the point being made and one of the few things that holds Lidstrom back in any of these debates is lack of a definitive clearly dominate peak.
Bourque, by comparison, not only played longer but ALSO had a much more dominant peak including a couple of top 3 finishes for the Hart.
Lidstrom has been good to very good for a very, very long time but he was never quite great for any real length of time.

While not having that real high peak doesn't hurt him against most players, once you start getting into the top 10-20, it does start to matter.

With Bourque and even Coffey, you can look back and say...yes they were amongst the top 2-5 players in the entire league in this year or that year.
You can't do that with Lidstrom. No doubt you could say he has been in the top 6-15 in the league every year for most of his career but he just never cracked into the very top.
Even Pronger out peaked him.

Good points. But I bet that if you polled GMs, coaches, and even players, and asked them to name the top 5 players they would want on their team every year over the last 10 to 12, Lidstrom would be on a lot of those lists.

I think the term "dominant" has really changed too over the last 20-30 years or so. It's more all-round game as compared to just offensive numbers. Hence Mike Green being left off the Olympic squad.

Just kinda playing Devil's advocate here. Or Wing's advocate.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

No but he definitely benefited from playing with two of the most extreme outliers in the history of the game

However, the point being made and one of the few things that holds Lidstrom back in any of these debates is lack of a definitive clearly dominate peak.
Bourque, by comparison, not only played longer but ALSO had a much more dominant peak including a couple of top 3 finishes for the Hart.
Lidstrom has been good to very good for a very, very long time but he was never quite great for any real length of time.

While not having that real high peak doesn't hurt him against most players, once you start getting into the top 10-20, it does start to matter.

With Bourque and even Coffey, you can look back and say...yes they were amongst the top 2-5 players in the entire league in this year or that year.
You can't do that with Lidstrom. No doubt you could say he has been in the top 6-15 in the league every year for most of his career but he just never cracked into the very top.
Even Pronger out peaked him.

Since many want to pretend the fact Lidstrom was one of the best defensive players of all-time does not in any way constitute "domination" we'll just look at his offensive production, despite it being Lidstrom's secondary strength.

Lidstrom has 4 seasons where he produced a similar amount, if not better, than Mike Green's best seasons.

His 80 pts in 2006 is the most from any defenseman in the past 15 years.

He has won the scoring race by 17.7% and 12.7% - impressive margins.

If you thought Fedorov's 1994 season was "dominant", when he was a top offensive and defensive player - well, Lidstrom has about 12 seasons like that. I'm honestly confused how anyone can think that is not dominant.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

People still pretend that it wasnt easier for defensemen to get Hart recognition in the 1980s than today?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

People still pretend that it wasnt easier for defensemen to get Hart recognition in the 1980s than today?

Were any of Langway's or Mark Howe's Hart finalist seasons better than Lidstrom's best seasons?

Was Pronger's Hart winning season better than Lidstrom's best or even Bourque, for that matter?

I view Stevens as having "dominant" seasons based on his defensive play, and not simply because of his offensive production.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Since many want to pretend the fact Lidstrom was one of the best defensive players of all-time does not in any way constitute "domination" we'll just look at his offensive production, despite it being Lidstrom's secondary strength.

Lidstrom has 4 seasons where he produced a similar amount, if not better, than Mike Green's best seasons.

His 80 pts in 2006 is the most from any defenseman in the past 15 years.

He has won the scoring race by 17.7% and 12.7% - impressive margins.

If you thought Fedorov's 1994 season was "dominant", when he was a top offensive and defensive player - well, Lidstrom has about 12 seasons like that. I'm honestly confused how anyone can think that is not dominant.

Pronger won the Hart with only 62 points and he WAS more dominant defensively that year than Lidstrom was in any year.
THAT is what we call a peak

You mention Fedorov's dominant season and there's a difference there. Not only did Feds put up great offensive numbers but he also played dominant defense in comparison to the rest of the forwards in the league.
Lidstrom's defensive play in relation to other defenders in league was no where near the same kind of gap that Feds had over other forwards.

The level of Lidstrom's defensive play has remained high for a crazy amount of time and that is what his career stands on more than anything but there were more than a few years where other d-men, like Pronger and Stevens, were actually more dominant defensively than he was.

Lidstrom is not the MOST dominant defensive d-man in history, what he is, is one of the most consistently dominant defensive d-men. There is a difference.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No but he definitely benefited from playing with two of the most extreme outliers in the history of the game

However, the point being made and one of the few things that holds Lidstrom back in any of these debates is lack of a definitive clearly dominate peak.
Bourque, by comparison, not only played longer but ALSO had a much more dominant peak including a couple of top 3 finishes for the Hart.
Lidstrom has been good to very good for a very, very long time but he was never quite great for any real length of time.

While not having that real high peak doesn't hurt him against most players, once you start getting into the top 10-20, it does start to matter.

With Bourque and even Coffey, you can look back and say...yes they were amongst the top 2-5 players in the entire league in this year or that year.
You can't do that with Lidstrom. No doubt you could say he has been in the top 6-15 in the league every year for most of his career but he just never cracked into the very top.
Even Pronger out peaked him.

Okay i can see Bourque being in the top 5 in some years but in which years exactly was Coffey a top 5 guy?

IV simply won't or can't address this as Stastny was a better player in that decade overall IMO.

I can see 84 and 85 especially with the playoffs as well but lets keep it simple are there any other years that we can actually say that he was one of the top 5 guys in the league. and conversely can we really say that Lidstrom never was? I simply don't see it.

RabbinsDuck makes some really good points about this in several of the last posts as well.

What is a RabbinsDuck anyways?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay i can see Bourque being in the top 5 in some years but in which years exactly was Coffey a top 5 guy?

IV simply won't or can't address this as Stastny was a better player in that decade overall IMO.

I can see 84 and 85 especially with the playoffs as well but lets keep it simple are there any other years that we can actually say that he was one of the top 5 guys in the league. and conversely can we really say that Lidstrom never was? I simply don't see it.

RabbinsDuck makes some really good points about this in several of the last posts as well.

What is a RabbinsDuck anyways?

Ok, you pick a year or years, if you think he deserves it, of Lidstrom's and I'll see if I can find 5 players I would consider better that year.

I'll (although I doubt I will be the only one naming names) try to be as fair as possible and of course have normal debate over any choices.

 

[pluppe]

No but he definitely benefited from playing with two of the most extreme outliers in the history of the game

However, the point being made and one of the few things that holds Lidstrom back in any of these debates is lack of a definitive clearly dominate peak.
Bourque, by comparison, not only played longer but ALSO had a much more dominant peak including a couple of top 3 finishes for the Hart.
Lidstrom has been good to very good for a very, very long time but he was never quite great for any real length of time.

While not having that real high peak doesn't hurt him against most players, once you start getting into the top 10-20, it does start to matter.

With Bourque and even Coffey, you can look back and say...yes they were amongst the top 2-5 players in the entire league in this year or that year.
You can't do that with Lidstrom. No doubt you could say he has been in the top 6-15 in the league every year for most of his career but he just never cracked into the very top.
Even Pronger out peaked him.

just curious, which of the bolded categories would you place Doug Harvey in?
1. good to very good for a very, very long time
2. great for any real length of time

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Ok, you pick a year or years, if you think he deserves it, of Lidstrom's and I'll see if I can find 5 players I would consider better that year.

I'll (although I doubt I will be the only one naming names) try to be as fair as possible and of course have normal debate over any choices.

Lidstrom was a better defenseman, offensively and defensively, than Ovechckin was a forward.

Ovechkin has no years comparable to Lidstrom, who had a 10+% scoring advantage while also being a shutdown player first and foremost.

It just highlights that actual defense has gotten next to no respect in the past decade.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Pronger won the Hart with only 62 points and he WAS more dominant defensively that year than Lidstrom was in any year.
THAT is what we call a peak

You mention Fedorov's dominant season and there's a difference there. Not only did Feds put up great offensive numbers but he also played dominant defense in comparison to the rest of the forwards in the league.
Lidstrom's defensive play in relation to other defenders in league was no where near the same kind of gap that Feds had over other forwards.

The level of Lidstrom's defensive play has remained high for a crazy amount of time and that is what his career stands on more than anything but there were more than a few years where other d-men, like Pronger and Stevens, were actually more dominant defensively than he was.

Lidstrom is not the MOST dominant defensive d-man in history, what he is, is one of the most consistently dominant defensive d-men. There is a difference.

I'll agree to disagree.
Lidstrom has always been better defensively than Pronger, and that includes Pronger's Hart winning season. Lidstrom was a better skater than Pronger, better positionally and was far and away better than Pronger with his stick. He also had a better breakout pass than Pronger that year.

Yes, Lidstrom was a better defenseman than Pronger that year, while I will allow Pronger was "more valuable to his team" than Lidstrom was - yet Pronger had MacInnis as his linemate while Lidstrom was playing with a 38 year-old, Larry Murphy.

Pronger wowed the media with big hits and big goals and a great +/-. In one of the weakest years for forwards ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll agree to disagree.
Lidstrom has always been better defensively than Pronger, and that includes Pronger's Hart winning season. Lidstrom was a better skater than Pronger and was far and away better than Pronger with his stick. He also had a better breakout pass than Pronger that year.

Yes, Lidstrom was a better defenseman than Pronger that year, while I will allow Pronger was "more valuable to his team" than Lidstrom was - yet Pronger had MacInnis as his linemate while Lidstrom was playing with a 38 year-old, Larry Murphy.

Pronger wowed the media with big hits and big goals and a great +/-. In one of the weakest years for forwards ever.

As far as I am aware, Pronger and MacInnis almost never played together at even strength. It wasn't just big hits, big goals and a great +/-. Pronger was the runaway best player on a team that was a surprising President's Trophy winner.

I do think Lidstrom has had a few seasons as good as Pronger's 2000, but you really are underestimating how good Pronger was in 2000.