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

[lazerbullet]

Reading this thread I realize how underrated defense is. Anyway, I agree with pretty much everything that RabbinsDuck has said.

 

[danincanada]

Doug Harvey, navy from 1942-43 on with some junior, couple senior games thru the end of the war.

Bounce back time from war experiences took a while.

Wasn't he focusing more on football before he served in the war?

My point stands anyways, Harvey wasn't heralded as some hockey prodigy at 18 years of age like a Crosby. He developed his style and game in his early 20's and hit his stride in his mid to late 20's, just like Lidstrom. Their careers mirror each other quite well even if for different reasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Going to look at a number of prevailing attitudes that seem to be common by looking at a specific O6 season - 1961-62.

Up thread a poster listed 7 forwards considered elite from a forward pool culled from 28 teams. The 1961-62 season featured the following elite forwards - Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore, Frank Mahovlich, Dave Keon, Red Kelly, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Gordie Howe, Alex Delvecchio, Norm Ullman, Andy Bathgate, Jphn Bucyk or 14 culled from 6 teams.

1960-61 Canadiens scored 254 goals. After the season Doug Harvey was traded and during the 1961-62 season the Canadiens lost 56 total games from Beliveau, Moore, H. Richard while Geoffrion slumped by more than 20 goals. Yet the team scored 259 goals since the forwards from 4 on down the totem pole had the ability to step-up and produce.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1962.html

this would not happen during the dead puck era. Effectively the perception that smaller is weaker does not hold. The reverse is true.

This also means that in a small six team league the dmen were challenged every shift, not only when the rarer elite player was on. Likewise the dmen had to face each opposing elite player 14 times a season as opposed to the 4-8 times that such a match-up would occur during the dead puck era.

You're just naming names of any forward who was ever elite who happened to play in 61-62. Do you really expect us to believe that Dickie Moore, Johnny Bucyk, or Red Kelly were considered elite forwards at this point?

Epsilon could have easily named Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov, among others, but of course, they were no longer threats to win the Hart by 99-00.

 

[Epsilon]

You're just naming names of any forward who was ever elite who happened to play in 61-62. Do you really expect us to believe that Dickie Moore, Johnny Bucyk, or Red Kelly were considered elite forwards at this point?

Epsilon could have easily named Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov, among others, but of course, they were no longer threats to win the Hart by 99-00.

Exactly, I was trying to be fairly exclusive with who I labelled an "elite forward". I don't think you'd find many well-argued complaints about any of the 7 names I listed for that time period. But I also don't see anyone else who could be included that couldn't be solidly disagreed with.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Further...........

Wasn't he focusing more on football before he served in the war?

My point stands anyways, Harvey wasn't heralded as some hockey prodigy at 18 years of age like a Crosby. He developed his style and game in his early 20's and hit his stride in his mid to late 20's, just like Lidstrom. Their careers mirror each other quite well even if for different reasons.

No, hockey was his first focus even though he had played on championship hockey and football teams during high school. Until Bobby Orr there was little attention paid a junior prodigy. Players had to perform at the NHL level.

Harvey's style followed him from high school/junior.The NDG district of Montreal where he grew up and played all his youth hockey always favoured a puck movement game. The Red Line in 1943-44 and related rule changes was advantageous to him.Just had to bounce back mentally from the war.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Performance

You're just naming names of any forward who was ever elite who happened to play in 61-62. Do you really expect us to believe that Dickie Moore, Johnny Bucyk, or Red Kelly were considered elite forwards at this point?

Epsilon could have easily named Steve Yzerman and Sergei Fedorov, among others, but of course, they were no longer threats to win the Hart by 99-00.

Dickie Moore had a 35 goal season in 1960-61 with a 1.2PPG that was equak to his 1957-58 Art Ross. Red Kelly had just centered Frank Mahovlich to a 48 goal season. John Bucyk had a bounce back season matching his career high in points.

But he didn't and even so he would still be 5 short. Just as in 1999-00 a forwrad did not win the Hart - Jacques Plante did so the threat to win the Hart is a non-factor.

 

[danincanada]

No, hockey was his first focus even though he had played on championship hockey and football teams during high school. Until Bobby Orr there was little attention paid a junior prodigy. Players had to perform at the NHL level.

Harvey's style followed him from high school/junior.The NDG district of Montreal where he grew up and played all his youth hockey always favoured a puck movement game. The Red Line in 1943-44 and related rule changes was advantageous to him.Just had to bounce back mentally from the war.

Thanks for sharing some background information on Harvey.

It still seems to me that he and Lidstrom share a lot of similarities. Lidstrom didn't come over to the NHL right away and had to deal with living in another country and playing on a smaller ice surface when he did. Harvey had to rebound from serving in the war and didn't play in the NHL until he was 23.

They both perfected their styles and game later than most all-time greats but the finished product was better than most would have imagined based on the players they were in their early 20's.

 

[islandersfreak21]

Denis Potvin says hello

 

[Hardyvan123]

Denis Potvin says hello

I like Potvin but he didn't play quite as long and his offense declined, maybe due to injuries?, after his age 26 (1980) season in terms of PPG during a time when scoring was actually rising a bit.

He is a bit underrated as the start of his career on such a weak team is unprecedented by a Dman.

He lead his team in scoring in his 1st 4 years and was 2nd in his 5th year.

Potvin, unlike Coffey, was also very good defensively.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I like Potvin but he didn't play quite as long and his offense declined, maybe due to injuries?, after his age 26 (1980) season in terms of PPG during a time when scoring was actually rising a bit.

He is a bit underrated as the start of his career on such a weak team is unprecedented by a Dman.

He lead his team in scoring in his 1st 4 years and was 2nd in his 5th year.

Potvin, unlike Coffey, was also very good defensively.

And Potvin was one mean SOB that hit like a truck.

People like to throw out things about Lidstrom, how he isn't a very physical player and still gets the job done quite well. That he doesn't need to be physical to be good and that shouldn't hurt where he ranks in the end.

Just like skating, passing or shooting, intimidation and physical play are definitely assets and skills.

It's all well and good that players with the puck will tend to shy away from Lidstrom's side of the ice or at least know they will have to try extra hard to beat him one on one.
It's a whole other can o' worms when players with or without the puck don't want anything to do what so ever with the front of the net and the side of the ice Potvin, Stevens or Pronger are on.
Even guys like Bourque, Chelios and Orr, while not overly intimidating physically, they still knew quite well how to punish guys.

 

[Epsilon]

And Potvin was one mean SOB that hit like a truck.

People like to throw out things about Lidstrom, how he isn't a very physical player and still gets the job done quite well. That he doesn't need to be physical to be good and that shouldn't hurt where he ranks in the end.

Just like skating, passing or shooting, intimidation and physical play are definitely assets and skills.

It's all well and good that players with the puck will tend to shy away from Lidstrom's side of the ice or at least know they will have to try extra hard to beat him one on one.
It's a whole other can o' worms when players with or without the puck don't want anything to do what so ever with the front of the net and the side of the ice Potvin, Stevens or Pronger are on.
Even guys like Bourque, Chelios and Orr, while not overly intimidating physically, they still knew quite well how to punish guys.

Only in as much as they translate to offense and defense. There's no reason particular skills deserve extra recognition above and beyond what they bring to a player's overall substantive game.

Denis Potvin was a comparable defensive player to Nicklas Lidstrom. This was in part BECAUSE he was an effective physical play, not in spite of it. Remove that aspect from his game, does his defense stay just as good? It's obviously impossible to tell, but the logical assumption would be it doesn't. This is like giving players extra credit for having size, or being fast skaters. This stuff doesn't mean anything when it's separated from the basic aspects of hockey, namely to score and prevent goals.

You are basically just re-hashing another version of the "hockey must be played the 'right'/stereotypical way to be of full value!" argument.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Only in as much as they translate to offense and defense. There's no reason particular skills deserve extra recognition above and beyond what they bring to a player's overall substantive game.

Denis Potvin was a comparable defensive player to Nicklas Lidstrom. This was in part BECAUSE he was an effective physical play, not in spite of it. Remove that aspect from his game, does his defense stay just as good? It's obviously impossible to tell, but the logical assumption would be it doesn't. This is like giving players extra credit for having size, or being fast skaters. This stuff doesn't mean anything when it's separated from the basic aspects of hockey, namely to score and prevent goals.

You are basically just re-hashing another version of the "hockey must be played the 'right'/stereotypical way to be of full value!" argument.

Let me put it another way then.

IF Lidstrom was capable of being a more physical player (not even talking about hitting people, just talking about leaning on people more and punishing them without drawing a penalty) would he be better or worse? Even more effective or less effective?

I say yes, he most definitely would be better and even more effective.

 

[redbull]

Only in as much as they translate to offense and defense. There's no reason particular skills deserve extra recognition above and beyond what they bring to a player's overall substantive game.

Denis Potvin was a comparable defensive player to Nicklas Lidstrom. This was in part BECAUSE he was an effective physical play, not in spite of it. Remove that aspect from his game, does his defense stay just as good? It's obviously impossible to tell, but the logical assumption would be it doesn't. This is like giving players extra credit for having size, or being fast skaters. This stuff doesn't mean anything when it's separated from the basic aspects of hockey, namely to score and prevent goals.

You are basically just re-hashing another version of the "hockey must be played the 'right'/stereotypical way to be of full value!" argument.

I think it's impossible to say, but a fair point. Is Billy Smith helped by the fact that some player feared to stand in front of him? Did it limit the amount of rebounds, deflections, wrap-around goals in those big games? He obviously felt it mattered otherwise he wouldn't do it. I think the same goes for Potvin and Bobby Clarke. That level of initimidation really mattered back then and I think it was a very significant differentiator when it came to overall player effectiveness.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Let me put it another way then.

IF Lidstrom was capable of being a more physical player (not even talking about hitting people, just talking about leaning on people more and punishing them without drawing a penalty) would he be better or worse? Even more effective or less effective?

I say yes, he most definitely would be better and even more effective.

Of course, Lidstrom would be better and more effective if he remained exactly the same at everything else and added another tool to his arsenal.

Here's another question:

If Ray Bourque were capable of stick-checking and poke-checking as well as Lidstrom, would he be better or worse? Even more effective or less effective?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Of course, Lidstrom would be better and more effective if he remained exactly the same at everything else and added another tool to his arsenal.

Here's another question:

If Ray Bourque were capable of stick-checking and poke-checking as well as Lidstrom, would he be better or worse? Even more effective or less effective?

...and do Lidstrom supporters not use those very things against Bourque, for Lidstrom in their arguments?

If Bourque being a weaker poke-checker and stick-checker than Lidstrom gets him a negative then fair is fair and Lidstrom should also be knocked for being weaker in physical play.

Right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

...and do Lidstrom supporters not use those very things against Bourque, for Lidstrom in their arguments?

If Bourque being a weaker poke-checker and stick-checker than Lidstrom gets him a negative then fair is fair and Lidstrom should also be knocked for being weaker in physical play.

Right?

Of course, it's fair to talk about every player's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[tjcurrie]

It's not HOW but IF you stop a player. We would have to compare how good each player was at doing that, however the method. Tough job.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It's not HOW but IF you stop a player. We would have to compare how good each player was at doing that, however the method. Tough job.

But keeping the puck out of your net is not just about how good one d-man is one on one.

Last I checked, no team employs full man on man def zone coverage anymore and haven't for quite a while now.

Maybe Lidstrom is a little better than Bourque one on one but I'd take Bourque over Lidstrom in front of the net, no question.

I don't buy the argument that Lidstrom was noticeably better positionally either. Better, maybe but not by some of the gaps I have read around here.
Yes, Bourque got caught more than Lidstrom over the years but at the same time, Lidstrom wasn't required to be the main drive behind his team's offense either. Bourque didn't have any where close to the same conservative option that Lidstrom had, so cutting Ray some slack on this is more than warranted.

I also wonder if Lidstrom's non-physicality would be as effective in a man on man scheme. What I do know though, is I did see Bourque being effective under either scheme.
Lidstrom's game is definitely more suited for today's zone systems. Man on man usually has a much more physical aspect to it.

Hey, some like to say Orr's time was a perfect storm situation. Maybe Lidstrom and today's systems and play style are also a perfect storm situation.

Pretty interesting spin eh

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Lidstrom is 6'1 190 lbs and pretty ripped - he played physical, just not dirty and rarely hit.

Before the lockout he could hitch a ride, pin a man in the corner and interfere with the best of them.

 

[Epsilon]

I like the double-standard of how "Player X from before couldn't play as well today" is considered a bogus argument (as it should be), but "Player Y of today couldn't play as well in a previous era" is not.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I like the double-standard of how "Player X from before couldn't play as well today" is considered a bogus argument (as it should be), but "Player Y of today couldn't play as well in a previous era" is not.

You realise that the bottom 1/3 of my last post was intended as a satire of exactly that right?

 

[BenchBrawl]

about the calming effect I talked about Robinson , I was also talking about intimidation/physical/psychological factor ( for both the rival and his own team ).Like I said , I'm not going to come here arguing if Lidstrom did more on paper than Robinson ( because he certainly did ) I just know I would take Robinson ahead of him , probably without regrets when all is said and done.I still think Robinson is underrated anyway.Same thing with Potvin , but I would take Potvin ahead of pretty much every dman not named Orr and Harvey.That's just the way I think a n1 defenseman should be.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Of course, Lidstrom would be better and more effective if he remained exactly the same at everything else and added another tool to his arsenal.

Here's another question:

If Ray Bourque were capable of stick-checking and poke-checking as well as Lidstrom, would he be better or worse? Even more effective or less effective?

I hope this is just a hypothetical because Bourque was one of the best poke-checkers I've ever seen.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I hope this is just a hypothetical because Bourque was one of the best poke-checkers I've ever seen.

It's not hypothetical. Bourque was one of the best poke-checkers I've ever seen. But Lidstrom is the very best at it I've ever seen.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's not hypothetical. Bourque was one of the best poke-checkers I've ever seen. But Lidstrom is the very best at it I've ever seen.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait for the adjusted poke-check stats before we start our argument.