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

[5lidyzer19]

And please don't put Lidstrom in the same sentence with Bobby Orr. k thanks.

Right back at you!




Anyways, I said "gaining ground", which basically explicitly says that Orr is better so I'm not sure what the big deal was with what I said.

 

[Reds4Life]

And please don't put Lidstrom in the same sentence with Bobby Orr. k thanks.

Why not? Lidstrom is certainly better defensive defenseman.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Fascinating

Uhhh Recchi is a great player. Why is it a surprise that he is playing well? This is more of a testament to the modern training and conditioning techniques rather than the lack of talent. I don't know how anyone can argue that the talent level nowadays is not higher than it's ever been, especially with the introduction of players from countries other than the United States and Canada.

Fascinating. Trust that you will grant that all the younger players on the 3rd and 4th lines regardless of provenance have access to the same modern training, conditioning techniques, I'll even throw in coaching, video study and what ever advantage you wish to attribute as Mark Recchi.

Despite all of these advantages plus youth, strength, speed, etc they do not produce as or bring the same value as Marck Recchi did to the Bruins. Obviously the only reason is that despite all the advantages imaginable they lack talent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Why not? Lidstrom is certainly better defensive defenseman.

*breaks out the popcorn*





Also, in before record +124 playing in a watered down league and all that is to follow.

 

[seventieslord]

I am not old enough to have seen Harvey play but your description of him sounds exactly like Lidstrom to me.

a more physical Lidstrom, from what I'm told.

And from the couple of games I've seen, I can tell you the extent to which he controls the game with his puck possession just has to be seen to be believed.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

I don't know how anyone can argue that the talent level nowadays is not higher than it's ever been, especially with the introduction of players from countries other than the United States and Canada.

In the 50's there were 6 teams (and I'm pretty sure there was only 3 forward lines). Making the NHL and staying in it was at least as hard as it is today.

 

[nik jr]

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

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

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

i agree with this, but lidstrom has lost more than a step. he is slow, among the slowest #1 d-men, which makes him much less effective defensively.

in addition to reputation, i think lidstrom was greatly helped by his early season hype, which is important in award and AS voting. earlier this season, lidstrom was scoring nearly a point per game and got his 1st hat trick, and there were many glowing stories about him, which also suggested he is likely to win another norris. but those ignored that his D and ES scoring were not great.

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

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

imo, weber should not have been a finalist (nor lidstrom). suter was better. weber's defensive numbers are not much better than lidstrom's even though lidstrom had a mediocre season and nashville had superior goaltending.

i would have voted for chara, but it was a very weak field.

I consider Nicklas Lidstrom to be no better now than I did last week, because I already saw enough hockey from the 2011 Regular Season to have made a fair assessment as to what it added to his career. I don't rely on the media in June to tell me how good a player was from October-April, if I have seen it with my own eyes.

agree

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

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

lidstrom was better than shanahan, imo. i did not see much at all of burke, but i would put iginla, theodore and roy above lidstrom in '02.

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

problem with this, imo, is that lidstrom did not perform very well defensively. did not often shut down F's, spent a large amount of time in the defensive zone and basically only broke even at ES in both shots and goals, despite playing for a team which took over 33 shots per game and scored 2nd most goals (would have scored most goals if datsyuk had not missed 26 games).

in stats, his shot differential, goal differential, GA and +/- were all much worse than last season.

a more physical Lidstrom, from what I'm told.

And from the couple of games I've seen, I can tell you the extent to which he controls the game with his puck possession just has to be seen to be believed.

agreed

i have only seen 1 full game of harvey, but his puck control was far beyond the other d-men. F's often did not even try to forecheck him. i saw him drop to 1 knee to block a shot when he probably should not have, though. but it worked.

he looked like a modern d-man playing against '50s d-men.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

you obviously haven't been around this board for a long time. There are quite a few regulars who not only were born, but remember watching Harvey play. (I'm not one of then).

 

[5lidyzer19]

See, that's what I mean. Say there are two guys who each played 15 years. they have six top-5 finishes between them. Player A won the award once. Player B was 5th five times. I think we'd have to be crazy to consider them equals. But 1 point for 5th, and 5 points for 1st implies that. So although your quick formula ultimately called Bourque better anyway, you can see what I mean about how a points system that makes sense and puts Lidstrom ahead is tough to do. I'd look at something closer to 10-8-7-6-5 to start

Using those numbers you provided, it comes out Bourque 143, Lidstrom 102. I would argue that Lidstrom was robbed of a top 5 finish in 2005 with the lockout, so his "score" could technically be 10-8-7-6-5 more if we were to award him a placing he almost surely would have secured.

Anyways, I enjoyed looking at it in this way. I guess the important thing to gather from this, is being in the top 5 more often COULD be considered more impressive. There has to be a line though. Would 2 years of second and 3 years of 3rd place be more impressive than 2 wins in 5 years? is 5 fifth place finishes better than 1 first and a 2nd place? Where is your line?



I'd also like to remember that Lidstrom has two seperate 3 peats, which is a pretty nice peak.

 

[danincanada]

you obviously haven't been around this board for a long time. There are quite a few regulars who not only were born, but remember watching Harvey play. (I'm not one of then).

Has anyone seen Shore play?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1966 was picked for a specific reason. It represented the lull or void period between Harvey and Orr at a time when the league especially on defense was getting older - Gadsby, Horton, Pilote.were past their prime.

Whenever there is a lull or a void there are other changes to the game that reflect the lull or void. So circa 1966 two rather high average defensemen won Norris Trophies - Laperriere in 1966 and Howell in 1967.Likewise the lull or void was filled on the offensive side as Bobby Hull broke the 50 goal barrier, both Hull and Stan Mikita set single season point records.

Now you allege that there is a lull or void when it comes to elite defensemen. I definitely agree. We may quibble a bit about the extent of the lull or void. But you still have not shown how that lull or void on defense has been exploited by offense to any degree. Nor have you claimed that the goaltending is vastly superior, hard to do since on a even after superficial analysis the goaltending beyond maybe 10 goalies is wanting. Yet there is no hint of offense filling the lull or void.

Looks like the overall talent is not what some believe it to be.

For one, this was one of the best years for goaltending performances ever. Lundqvist and Price would have won Vezinas in average years with how they played this year and weren't even finalists.

For another, Crosby actually was well on his way to reaching historical heights for offense, but was injured.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Has anyone seen Shore play?

Highly doubt anyone here has (except in some old videos), but some of the older posters have talked to older people who did.

 

[Merya]

I see it as a pool of 4-6 guys all well below Orr

I wouldn't say "well below". Both Borque and Lidas have twice the years on Orr. And that has to mean something. In my point of view, if Gretzky had only those 9 hart years, his value would be diminished alot. But thats me, most know I value career longevity and ability to play into older ages alot.

 

[Dangler99*]

Orr>>>>>Lidstrom

 

[Zine]

Fascinating. Trust that you will grant that all the younger players on the 3rd and 4th lines regardless of provenance have access to the same modern training, conditioning techniques, I'll even throw in coaching, video study and what ever advantage you wish to attribute as Mark Recchi.

Despite all of these advantages plus youth, strength, speed, etc they do not produce as or bring the same value as Marck Recchi did to the Bruins. Obviously the only reason is that despite all the advantages imaginable they lack talent.

Citing a very rare exception to the norm (Recchi) is not evidence.

If the league does, in fact, lack talent depth, we'd see numerous skilled players well into their 40s still able to play and contribute. But, alas, we don't....there's only a small handful. And the majority of those (if not all) are future HOF level players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

*breaks out the popcorn*





Also, in before record +124 playing in a watered down league and all that is to follow.

I don't see why it should be controversial. Harry sinden himself said that he'd rather have Bourque over Orr to hold a 1 goal lead. And may of us accept that Lidstrom's defense is probably slightly better than Bourque's, if for no other reason that he took fewer chances.

Neither Lidstrom or bourque, of course, could hold Orr's jock in all-round play

 

[Merya]

"Candle that burns so bright, burns half as long" - Tyrell
I like to have my candles last thru the whole darkness.

I'm not disputing Orr's greatness. I'm just tired of people making a deity out of him again and again and again. He was great. He also had a short career.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Admitting...

For one, this was one of the best years for goaltending performances ever. Lundqvist and Price would have won Vezinas in average years with how they played this year and weren't even finalists.

For another, Crosby actually was well on his way to reaching historical heights for offense, but was injured.

Indirectly admitting that beyond Crosby, the rest of the league is offensively challenged.

Your Price and Lundqvist analogy is interesting.Since the 2005-06 season the #1 goalie on a team often plays over 65 games:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=games_goalie


But the other side of the argument is that the back-up goalie in such instances is very weak, barely NHL quality - Alex Auld in Montreal. So again we are left with the depth question. 1966 Boston had Ed Johnston, Gerry Cheevers, Bernie Parent.Factor in that Philadelphia has been trying to find a high average goalie since at least twenty seasons and the depth issue remains.









;

 

[Ogopogo*]

What do you have against Harvey?



.

Nothing against Harvey. When you look at the ballots cast for the Hart Trophy he is behind players like Orr, Shore and Bourque. Combine those ballots with ballots for the Norris and offensive contributions and Harvey comes out #4.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Has anyone seen Shore play?

Yes, the people who cast ballots for the Hart Trophy in the 30s saw him play and judged him the best player in hockey on 4 separate occasions. Not even Bobby Orr can boast that.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Nothing against Harvey. When you look at the ballots cast for the Hart Trophy he is behind players like Orr, Shore and Bourque. Combine those ballots with ballots for the Norris and offensive contributions and Harvey comes out #4.

Pre-Norris defensemen had a much greater likelihood of winning the Hart. Shore has diminished in my eyes over the years - I just do not think the Pre-Original 6 NHL stacks up that well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't see why it should be controversial. Harry sinden himself said that he'd rather have Bourque over Orr to hold a 1 goal lead. And may of us accept that Lidstrom's defense is probably slightly better than Bourque's, if for no other reason that he took fewer chances.

Neither Lidstrom or bourque, of course, could hold Orr's jock in all-round play

I agree with you completely.

I just assumed that the usual suspects would show up to let us know that Orr was in fact capable of being in two places at once again.

I don't care if Jesus does wear a #4 jersey when playing hockey in heaven.. a defenseman doesn't score over 100 points in the NHL while playing defense on the level of a Lidstrom at the same time.

No doubt if Orr was protecting a lead late or whatever he was capable of ratcheting up his defense to spectacular levels, but his big plus minuses were more from depositing the rondel in the other net. And during the early to mid 70s Orr sure did that. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense, I suppose.

That being said I still easily put him #1 overall and just due to the fact he was so far ahead of his peers in the 70s I doubt Orr's dominance will ever be matched.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Nothing against Harvey. When you look at the ballots cast for the Hart Trophy he is behind players like Orr, Shore and Bourque. Combine those ballots with ballots for the Norris and offensive contributions and Harvey comes out #4.

The "criteria" for the Hart seems to change on a regular basis.

 

[JazzRockford]

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

It's a good question and Lidström's edge certainly isn't as clear as one may think when looking at Conn Smythe and Cups. However, when the case is close, you almost have to give the nod to the guy who took his teams further. 4 Cups and 2 finals (granted, Lidström wasn't that important in 1995) is just so much better than 2 final losses. Lidström was very important in shutting down Lindros in 1997, in 1998 he was a Conn Smythe candidate, 2002 he won it, 2007 he's probably Detroit's MVP and 2008/2009 he's at worst the 3rd best player on Detroit, most likely 2rd best in 2008 at least.

 

[Merya]

Harvey, Orr, Bourque, Shore, *yawn*
You left Lidström out on purpose to get on my nerves?
Also You forgot Potvin.
And if you don't suffer from tunnelvision, you might as well add Fetisov in to the argument.

Meh my head is starting to hurt from ya darn North Americans.