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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

agreed. Hart voting is definitely useful to look at, but you need to take context of the era into account, especially for defensemen.

 

[BraveCanadian]

"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.

Personally I think that Bourque/Lidstrom at this point is a cointoss, and I have for some time.

I do find it funny that Bourque was amazing when he was a post season allstar in his late 30s and at 40 and what a fantastic accomplishment it is for him.

Meanwhile when Lidstrom wins the freaking Norris trophy at age 41 it is because of poor competition - the same argument used against him for what - half a decade or more now?? - while the same people making this argument generally say that players are "bigger, faster, stronger and better trained than ever before".

How much more does Nik have to do to get his respect?

Anyways, don't worry, in 30-40 years when the predominantly 20-somethings are debating about Lidstrom they will be doing the same thing for him that they are doing for Orr now.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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

The point is, people who voted on the Hart were first-hand eyewitnesses. We can either take and use the Hart balloting as an evaluation tool or we can just make wild guesses based on anecdotal evidence.

I would rather take the ballots of eyewitnesses even if the true definition of the award may change. There isn't much difference between a player who finishes first, second or third - the actual winner isn't all that important.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparable Season

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.

A comparable season would be the 1972-73 season, first year of the WHA when six players over the age of 40 played. Only Tim Horton had any impact leading a second year expansion team to the playoffs:

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

Posters tend to agree that the arrival of the WHA weakened the NHL.

This year there were 5 players over the age of 40 - Lidstrom, Recchi, Selanne, Modano, Weight.Only Weight played a filler role on a non-playoff team. Modanno was injured a good part of the season but Lidstrom, Selanne, Recchi performed at a level that very few bottom half of the roster players could match.Lack of overall talent and depth.

 

[Merya]

Personally I think that Bourque/Lidstrom at this point is a cointoss, and I have for some time.

I believe a rather well regarded poster here by the name of God Bless Canada has implied that when all else is equal, pick the winners (SC). Or something like that in some ATD threads. So yeah, I'd pick Lidström over Bourque (and definitely over Harvey >_< ).

 

[BraveCanadian]

The point is, people who voted on the Hart were first-hand eyewitnesses. We can either take and use the Hart balloting as an evaluation tool or we can just make wild guesses based on anecdotal evidence.

I would rather take the ballots of eyewitnesses even if the true definition of the award may change. There isn't much difference between a player who finishes first, second or third - the actual winner isn't all that important.

When you're comparing players across time it makes a big difference.

Lidstrom, for example, basically has had no opportunity to win it because defensemen just don't win it these days.

Only one defenseman has one it in 40 years and that was only because Jagr was hurt and Lidstrom "played for Detroit".

(Bourque quite possibly should have won it too the one year he was left off a ballot but that is beside the point)

 

[seventieslord]

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.

You must know that hart voting trends have changed considerably over the years.

Take a look at what percentage of hart votes cast in the direction of defensemen in their eras went to them, and you will see that they were much closer than you're letting on.

but his big plus minuses were more from depositing the rondel in the other net.

For sure, mostly. But he also didn't have very many minuses.

1971 defensemen, 75+ games, 21+ ES min/GP, ranked by ESGA:

Tallon 111
Stackhouse 109
Marotte 101
Watson 100
Barrie 94
Green 87
Harris 78
Tremblay 74
Picard 71
Stapleton 68
Orr 55
Neilson 54

same thing, 1974 (74+ GP):

Gibbs 109
Dailey 106
Wilkins 105
Potvin 101
Reid 101
Pratt 95
Park 93
Murdoch 87
Awrey 85
Carriere 85
Vadnais 83
Orr 83
Manery 76
Harper 74
Robinson 73
Quinn 70
Russell 57


same thing, 1975:

Hamel 123
Marotte 110
Vadnais 103
Redmond 94
Pratt 87
Orr 85
Potvin 77
Murdoch 71

And on a per-minute level he would look even better, especially using the minutes you are convinced he played.

It would be a tough undertaking, but if we added up Orr's ESGA totals throughout his best 6 years and compared to others who played that same 6-year period I think he'd be one of the very best per-game, as he seems to be the only one consistently at the top each year.

of course, to do it properly we'd need to consider their teams too.

 

[Ogopogo*]

When you're comparing players across time it makes a big difference.

Lidstrom, for example, basically has had no opportunity to win it because defensemen just don't win it these days.

Only one defenseman has one it in 40 years and that was only because Jagr was hurt and Lidstrom "played for Detroit".

(Bourque quite possibly should have won it too the one year he was left off a ballot but that is beside the point)

Who wins it is largely irrelevant - receiving significant ballots is. If a guy wins a Hart by one point over #2, is that a significant difference? To some the winner is everything, I don't agree.

Defenseman do and always have received significant votes in Hart balloting.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I believe a rather well regarded poster here by the name of God Bless Canada has implied that when all else is equal, pick the winners (SC). Or something like that in some ATD threads. So yeah, I'd pick Lidström over Bourque (and definitely over Harvey >_< ).

Yeah, I brought that up earlier in the thread that a point that just has to be in Lidstrom's favour in these discussions is that he has been the common denominator in the 4 Red Wings championships and additional 2 finals appearances.

Being a cup winning captain and a Conn Smythe winner in addition to a record like that gives him easily the most well rounded resume of all the guys up for discussion after Orr.

 

[unknown33]

When people look at Hart voting and Scoring finishes decades from now to compare Daniel and Henrik later seems far superior, but in reality they are probably the two closes players ever in terms of value.

 

[Pual Statsny]

So now that Lidstrom has his seventh Norris, he ties Doug Harvey in that category. He also tied Harvey with 10 First Team All Star selections. With respect to guys like Bourque and Coffey, I would say it has to be between Lidstrom and Harvey for second all time behind Bobby Orr. Who would you guys choose? I would personally say Lidstrom because he has so much more competition in this era. Harvey played in the Original Six era where there wasn't as many people playing hockey back then whereas Lidstrom is playing in a 30 team league. Your thoughts?

Coffey doesn't belong in the same sentence as Bourque. I'd say it's a 4 way tie with Bourque/Lidstrom/Harvey/Shore but I'd lean towards Bourque.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Who wins it is largely irrelevant - receiving significant ballots is. If a guy wins a Hart by one point over #2, is that a significant difference? To some the winner is everything, I don't agree.

Defenseman do and always have received significant votes in Hart balloting.

Let me spell it out for you again.

If there is a bias against your position winning the Hart in your era: you will receive proportionally less Hart votes than your counterpart playing exactly the same in an era that the bias doesn't exist.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Coffey doesn't belong in the same sentence as Bourque. I'd say it's a 4 way tie with Bourque/Lidstrom/Harvey/Shore but I'd lean towards Bourque.

Poor Coffey.

He has to be below these guys a bit but damn you'd never know he was a three time Norris winner by the beating he takes on these boards.

 

[Merya]

I really wanna add Potvin and Fetisov for flavour. There are strong arguments for both to be considered best of the best DMen.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Defenseman do and always have received significant votes in Hart balloting.

Haha, no, not at all.

In the era between the forward pass within zones (1929) and the forward pass between zones / red line (1944), defensemen got more Hart consideration than any other position. Then they continued getting some Hart consideration until the Norris trophy.

The only era when defensemen (other than Orr) really got regualr consideration since the Norris trophy was the 1980s when Gretzky and later Lemieux overshadowed all the lesser forwards, so often defensemen and goalies got 2nd / 3rd place

 

[Merya]

I'm not really sure we should even consider players from before 1929 for anything. Maybe even so with 1944.
For arguments, check football (soccer). Major rules changes considered fundamental change in game, making it a different game altogether.
In Football its nice to start with first world cup. Is there any such point for hockey other than 1944?

ps. I know its HoH, but it's not prehistory of hockey, is it? At least for player comparisons.

 

[5lidyzer19]

This year there were 5 players over the age of 40 - Lidstrom, Recchi, Selanne, Modano, Weight.Only Weight played a filler role on a non-playoff team. Modanno was injured a good part of the season but Lidstrom, Selanne, Recchi performed at a level that very few bottom half of the roster players could match.Lack of overall talent and depth.

Huh? 5 players out of a few hundred....so what...like less than a fraction of 1%???....

So a few elite, hall of fame players are still playing after age 40 in reduced roles. What about the hundreds and hundreds who are long finished at this age? How can you possibly think that one or two EXCEPTIONS represent any kind of trend towards decline in depth?

Say in 15 years Crosby is an aging 3/4th line player than still puts up 60 points. Or Jagr does the same next season. That wouldn't mean the league was bad, it says something about the quality of that player. That even as a shadow of their former self, they can still make it into the best league in the world.

 

[Merya]

Yeah except this season one 41 year old won the norris, and the other had 80 points in 73 games.

 

[danincanada]

Huh? 5 players out of a few hundred....so what...like less than a fraction of 1%???....

So a few elite, hall of fame players are still playing after age 40 in reduced roles. What about the hundreds and hundreds who are long finished at this age? How can you possibly think that one or two EXCEPTIONS represent any kind of trend towards decline in depth?

Say in 15 years Crosby is an aging 3/4th line player than still puts up 60 points. Or Jagr does the same next season. That wouldn't mean the league was bad, it says something about the quality of that player. That even as a shadow of their former self, they can still make it into the best league in the world.

I agree 100% and stars playing until they're 40 is nothing new:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/player-age/40-year-old-nhl-players.html

There have been a few more "freaks of nature" recently with guys like Chelios, Lidstrom, Selanne and Recchi but I think that has a lot to do with more advanced medical technology and a greater dedication to fitness from the players.

Listening to Lidstrom talk about coming back for one more year, it sounded almost like his biggest concern was if he could handle the off season training he will put himself through. These guys work extremely hard to keep playing the NHL at their age.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

Huh? 5 players out of a few hundred....so what...like less than a fraction of 1%???....

So a few elite, hall of fame players are still playing after age 40 in reduced roles. What about the hundreds and hundreds who are long finished at this age? How can you possibly think that one or two EXCEPTIONS represent any kind of trend towards decline in depth?

Say in 15 years Crosby is an aging 3/4th line player than still puts up 60 points. Or Jagr does the same next season. That wouldn't mean the league was bad, it says something about the quality of that player. That even as a shadow of their former self, they can still make it into the best league in the world.

1983-84 season only 3 players 35 or older:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi

1992-93 expansion era zero players over 37.

early mid 1980's featured multiple HHOFers who simply could not compete with the new talent even for depth roles. Likewise in 1992-93.

Today that is not the case despite the alleged explosion of hockey talent players with high end skill levels were being replaced by age 35-37, 20- 30 years ago,

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

58 skaters in the NHL > 35 years old including true fringers like Jason Strudwick, Andreas Lilja, and others who were far from great.If the Jason Strudwicks, types cannot be replaced by youth then there is a serious talent lag in today's NHL that was not present in 1984 or 1993.

 

[Rappaport]

1983-84 season only 3 players 35 or older:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi

1992-93 expansion era zero players over 37.

early mid 1980's featured multiple HHOFers who simply could not compete with the new talent even for depth roles. Likewise in 1992-93.

Today that is not the case despite the alleged explosion of hockey talent players with high end skill levels were being replaced by age 35-37, 20- 30 years ago,

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

58 skaters in the NHL > 35 years old including true fringers like Jason Strudwick, Andreas Lilja, and others who were far from great.If the Jason Strudwicks, types cannot be replaced by youth then there is a serious talent lag in today's NHL that was not present in 1984 or 1993.

Once again, the Canadian Veteran players maffia lobbying group is out in full force, polluting the threads whit their smack.
Lidström is ahead of Bourque and Harvey. A head of Orr too, all things concidered. I think Lidstrom is the No1# defender of all time now.

 

[tony d]

I still take Bourque as the better defenseman all-time than Lidstrom or Harvey

 

[Dangler99*]

Once again, the Canadian Veteran players maffia lobbying group is out in full force, polluting the threads whit their smack.
Lidström is ahead of Bourque and Harvey. A head of Orr too, all things concidered. I think Lidstrom is the No1# defender of all time now.

 

[Brewsky]

The last Norris Liddy definitely did not deserve it IMO.

I still wouldn't have Lidstrom top 2, I'd argue the other 2 dmen from BAWSTIN, over him.

 

[norrisnick]

The last Norris Liddy definitely did not deserve it IMO.

I still wouldn't have Lidstrom top 2, I'd argue the other 2 dmen from BAWSTIN, over him.

Even if you take away the '11 Norris he should have won the '09 and '98 Norris.