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

[nudie]

The keyword here is nostalgia.

 

[Zine]

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,

Again, you cite an anomaly as evidence. In fact, you proposed a theory to explain why so few 35+ players existed 30 years ago.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=907947

YOU proposed that the "short shift game" was the reason older players had difficulty competing. You did not state nor mention anything regarding talent level or depth.....only an inability to adapt to a new style of game.
Yet now your position is that (relative to today's players) past 35+ y.o. were replaced because of better overall league depth?

A bit dishonest and certainly contradictory.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In Fact......................

Again, you cite an anomaly as evidence. In fact, you proposed a theory to explain why so few 35+ players existed 30 years ago.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=907947

YOU proposed that the "short shift game" was the reason older players had difficulty competing. You did not state nor mention anything regarding talent level or depth.....only an inability to adapt to a new style of game.
Yet now your position is that (relative to today's players) past 35+ y.o. were replaced because of better overall league depth?

A bit dishonest and certainly contradictory.

In fact the opposite is true. The short shift game showed that the older players could not adapt BUT the talent of the young players was at such a level that they could step right in and no one missed the older players.

Fast forward to the 2005-06 season, post lockout NHL with rule changes designed to speed up the game. The older players had a problem adapting and some left the game. Others like Lidstrom struggled a bit - his PIM almost tripled from 18 in 2003-04 to a career high 50 in 2005-06. But they were not completely replaced because the depth of talent was not there. You had a nice upward talent bump because the entry players from two seasons were combined into one.

So again everything is above board without any contradictions.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In 2002, he had a Norris and a Conn Smythe on a stacked Red Wings Cup team. How much more of a peak do you need?


Lidstrom was 27 when Konstantinov suffered his accident. I thought it was pretty standard for defenseman to take longer to mature and become elite. So, it's no surprise that he wasn't dominating yet at 24...25..26..

It's funny this comes up alot though as if Lidstrom was a bum or something beofre he won his Norris.

Bourque stood out more on a weak team and was more visually impressive and offensively gifted than Lidstrom but Lidstrom hit the ground running with Detroit winning the Calder in his rookie year.

His longevity, extremely strong playoff resume, maybe only Potvin rivals it among Dmen, and the quality of the NHL when he played all make him a serious contender for number 1 overall IMO.

Award counting is overrated sometimes IMO except fro maybe the obvious like Art Ross. Sometimes injuries or weird selectivity from the voters come into play when looking at some of the awards. the hart for instance is virtually impossible for a goalie or Dman to win except in exceptional circumstances and some voters will have different values when judging players from different positions or even the strength of the teams certain players play for.

IMO if we are judging greatest of all time and not only peak then Orr is in the mix along with Lidstrom, Bourque, Potvin and Harvey. Of course the order of these guys depends on how one values and judges and weighs various factors other than pure peak or how they did against their direct competition from year to year as the quality doesn't remain constant. The NHL has not remained constant and all of these players have played in distinct enough years to make comparisons very difficult among these all time greats.

 

[CHGoalie27]

If I'm a goalie, Bobby Orr is the only D-man I'd take over Scott Stevens. That's only because Orr didn't choose to play forward.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I acknowledged what you're getting at in my very first post.



However, I will say that if Bourque had 7 Norris and Lidstrom had 5, it would be used at a pillar reason for those who support Bourque to have him ahead of Lidstrom. So, yes, I will use the hardware as evidence.

Guys use the counting of Hart trophies to evaluate Shore and Clark all the time.

It is overused IMO, we have to judge each player on a multiple of factors and judge the entirety of his career as well.

Unfortunately some people pick and choose certain arguments like trophies or Cup wins when it suits them.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Can the people claiming bias against defensemen in Hart voting do the rest of us a favor and name the specific years between Orr and now that a defenseman was in your personal Top 3 at the end of the year?

The only one that comes to my mind who DIDN'T get a Hart nomination was Coffey in 1986.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's funny this comes up alot though as if Lidstrom was a bum or something beofre he won his Norris.

He wasn't a bum. He also wasn't the top defenseman on his own team, let alone a top player in the league.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Chara - played in front of the best goalie in the league. As for +/- Bruins had 11 players with +10 or greater. Eight players with +20 or more.

Thomas let in 56 goals LESS than Howard. Thomas faced 1811 shots, Howard 1830. That speaks for itself. +/- is largely a team stat. Red Wings were not very good defensively this year, but that does not mean Lidstrom should be penalized for that.
Once Howard stopped sucking (playoffs), Lidstrom's +/- went up, obviously.

Weber should not have been nominated, at all. Suter was better this season.

While I found it hard to see the lack of support for Suter, Weber did deserve to be there as well.

We're going to find out in a year or two.

My money is on it being more of the latter than the former.

Detroit has a great team concept and overall organization but almost certainly Lidstrom has been the common denominator in their success over the last 15 or so years.

I agree that it is more of the latter but in a year or two the team and league will be entirely different as well so it's not the best indicator IMO.

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

Or how the level of play was then compared to today. Guys like him and Shore are really hard to evaluate IMO. Going by news reports also isn't very good as the role of objectivity in the press isn't a constant by any means.

 

[Epsilon]

He wasn't a bum. He also wasn't the top defenseman on his own team, let alone a top player in the league.

He finished 2nd in Norris trophy voting and was a 1st team all-star 3 times before he won his first Norris.

 

[neelysbiggestfan]

Can the people claiming bias against defensemen in Hart voting do the rest of us a favor and name the specific years between Orr and now that a defenseman was in your personal Top 3 at the end of the year?

The only one that comes to my mind who DIDN'T get a Hart nomination was Coffey in 1986.

Bourque should have won in 1990.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He wasn't a bum. He also wasn't the top defenseman on his own team, let alone a top player in the league.

That he was or was not the best Dman on his team in those years is debatable from year to year and even if he wasn't some of those guys were HOF guys.

The main point to me is that his level of play was still extremely high in his early years, maybe not Bourque high but still very high.

 

[quoipourquoi]

He finished 2nd in Norris trophy voting and was a 1st team all-star 3 times before he won his first Norris.

The posters quoting me were responding to my assessment of his pre-Konstantinov-injury career. I didn't realize they switched it.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Bourque should have won in 1990.

And he was nominated. Where's the bias against his position there?

 

[DanZ]

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.

Players are allowed to play at their peak, or close to their peak for longer nowadays. It is a testament to the modern conditions and training. Nothing more. I can't believe you are trying to argue that the talent level is not leaps and bounds ahead of the 80s.

 

[DanZ]

In fact the opposite is true. The short shift game showed that the older players could not adapt BUT the talent of the young players was at such a level that they could step right in and no one missed the older players.

Fast forward to the 2005-06 season, post lockout NHL with rule changes designed to speed up the game. The older players had a problem adapting and some left the game. Others like Lidstrom struggled a bit - his PIM almost tripled from 18 in 2003-04 to a career high 50 in 2005-06. But they were not completely replaced because the depth of talent was not there. You had a nice upward talent bump because the entry players from two seasons were combined into one.

So again everything is above board without any contradictions.

Lidstrom's increase in penalty minutes was more than likely due to the stricter interpretations of the rules that year. Probably 90% of the league had higher PIM that year. Lidstrom had no trouble adapting, considering he scored 80 points and won the Norris, again...

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think I'd still put it Orr, Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think one could make a reasonable case for any of Bourque, Harvey Lidstrom and Shore for spots 2-5, depending on what criteria they value. Potvin or possibly a few others could contend for position five, as well.

Ahem, sounds like Lidstrom leads where it matters most... top-1s!!!!!!!!

Top ones clearly matter more than, say, top fives, but we can't give them undue weight.

Otherwise, we'd rank Randy Carlyle, Harry Howell and Doug Wilson ahead of Scott Stevens, Brad Park and Borje Salming.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Probably

Lidstrom's increase in penalty minutes was more than likely due to the stricter interpretations of the rules that year. Probably 90% of the league had higher PIM that year. Lidstrom had no trouble adapting, considering he scored 80 points and won the Norris, again...

The old probably 90% position used by those who never bother to check and try to bluff their way along.

Let's check the Detroit Red Wings numbers since Lidstrom was constrained to a team and not influenced by the rest of the league.

Regular season, 82 games, both seasons. Lidstrom played 81 games and 80 games respectively.

2003-04 the Red Wings totaled 944 PIM, 2005-06 Red Wings totaled 1103 PIM. So while the Red Wings collectively, with Lidstrom, saw their PIMs increase by ~ 15%, Lidstrom's PIMs almost tripled. The Red Wings adapted much better than Lidstrom.

No crime, same thing happened with Doug Harvey as he aged.

 

[5lidyzer19]

The old probably 90% position used by those who never bother to check and try to bluff their way along.

Let's check the Detroit Red Wings numbers since Lidstrom was constrained to a team and not influenced by the rest of the league.

Regular season, 82 games, both seasons. Lidstrom played 81 games and 80 games respectively.

2003-04 the Red Wings totaled 944 PIM, 2005-06 Red Wings totaled 1103 PIM. So while the Red Wings collectively, with Lidstrom, saw their PIMs increase by ~ 15%, Lidstrom's PIMs almost tripled. The Red Wings adapted much better than Lidstrom.

No crime, same thing happened with Doug Harvey as he aged.

As someone who often preforms analytical procedures on financial statements, I think that you're putting way too much weight into those percentage changes year over year. Lidstrom went from 18 (an already extremely low number for someone of his minutes and level of compeition) to 50. Sure that's triple (300%)...but you can see in 2001 to 2002 he went from 20 to 40 and then back down to 20. That's a 200% increase and then a 50% decline! It's like when a company has $100 in revenue, falls 50% to $50, then sees a 100% increase the next year!!! I'd be excited about the "HUGE" 100% increase...if I didn't know that meant their revenue was still only $75...which is less than the original $100.....25% less in fact. You can't get too caught up in year to year changes without taking them into context. In reality, he's still only getting 1 penalty about every 2 games...playing huge minutes against the best players in the world. It's not like he was some liability hauling people down all over the ice because he couldn't compete.

Not to mention, I think it would be more fair to lump in Lidstrom with how his increase faired against other defensemen on his team and other teams. The rules were largely changed to open up offense, so defenseman were more adversly effected than forwards. I don't see the value in throwing in the forwards, whose games would naturally be less effected. Compare him against Peers at his position and maybe you'd have something. Hell, Lidstrom was known for not being physical. He relied on perfect positioning and smarts, so I doubt he was as effected as say a Pronger or a Hatcher.

You also neglect to note that Lidstrom's PIM steadily declined from the peak you describe. If he was having a "hard time adjusting" why is it that he was steadily improving in a trend over a period of years right after? 50, 46, 40, 30, 24, 20 PIM's respectively(sure his ice time was probably going down as well, but not in proportion with this type of decline in PIM). In fact, in his Norris season he just played, he had 20 PIM, which returns him all the way back down to his pre-lockout numbers, and he's still playing at an elite level. Hard time adjusting? I don't see it.

 

[loadie]

I think Harvey is considered the 2nd best defenceman behind Orr because of how he helped change the defensive game. It was Harvey who would jump into the play and it started the trend of the defenceman playing more offensively. Orr took it to a completely different level. Winning 7 Norris trophies in 8 years didn't hurt either.

 

[Dangler99*]

I think Harvey is considered the 2nd best defenceman behind Orr because of how he helped change the defensive game. It was Harvey who would jump into the play and it started the trend of the defenceman playing more offensively. Orr took it to a completely different level. Winning 8 Norris trophies in a row didn't hurt either.

Fixed makes it even better.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey

As someone who often preforms analytical procedures on financial statements, I think that you're putting way too much weight into those percentage changes year over year. Lidstrom went from 18 (an already extremely low number for someone of his minutes and level of compeition) to 50. Sure that's triple (300%)...but you can see in 2001 to 2002 he went from 20 to 40 and then back down to 20. That's a 200% increase and then a 50% decline! It's like when a company has $100 in revenue, falls 50% to $50, then sees a 100% increase the next year!!! I'd be excited about the "HUGE" 100% increase...if I didn't know that meant their revenue was still only $75...which is less than the original $100.....25% less in fact. You can't get too caught up in year to year changes without taking them into context. In reality, he's still only getting 1 penalty about every 2 games...playing huge minutes against the best players in the world. It's not like he was some liability hauling people down all over the ice because he couldn't compete.

Not to mention, I think it would be more fair to lump in Lidstrom with how his increase faired against other defensemen on his team and other teams. The rules were largely changed to open up offense, so defenseman were more adversly effected than forwards. I don't see the value in throwing in the forwards, whose games would naturally be less effected. Compare him against Peers at his position and maybe you'd have something. Hell, Lidstrom was known for not being physical. He relied on perfect positioning and smarts, so I doubt he was as effected as say a Pronger or a Hatcher.

You also neglect to note that Lidstrom's PIM steadily declined from the peak you describe. If he was having a "hard time adjusting" why is it that he was steadily improving in a trend over a period of years right after? 50, 46, 40, 30, 24, 20 PIM's respectively(sure his ice time was probably going down as well, but not in proportion with this type of decline in PIM). In fact, in his Norris season he just played, he had 20 PIM, which returns him all the way back down to his pre-lockout numbers, and he's still playing at an elite level. Hard time adjusting? I don't see it.

However we are not discussing accounting101 rather we are discussing hockey where a players age matters.

Doug Harvey:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/harvedo01.html

If you look at Harvey's PIM totals you will see spikes followed by strong decreases three times during his career. Twice Harvey adjusted, the third time a season after his last Norris, the speed of the league had caught up to and surpassed his age and Harvey left the NHL, spent a few years in the minors then returned for a last hurrah post expansion when there was a talent void. Harvey left the NHL because there was sufficient talent to replace him and returned to a league twice its size because the talent was lacking. Same thing happened with other great dmen, Chelios being the latest.

Lidstrom is no different.

 

[5lidyzer19]

However we are not discussing accounting101 rather we are discussing hockey where a players age matters.

Doug Harvey:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/harvedo01.html

If you look at Harvey's PIM totals you will see spikes followed by strong decreases three times during his career. Twice Harvey adjusted, the third time a season after his last Norris, the speed of the league had caught up to and surpassed his age and Harvey left the NHL, spent a few years in the minors then returned for a last hurrah post expansion when there was a talent void. Harvey left the NHL because there was sufficient talent to replace him and returned to a league twice its size because the talent was lacking. Same thing happened with other great dmen, Chelios being the latest.

Lidstrom is no different.

If it's such a basic concept, then I'm not sure why you were continuing to make the mistake then. Using 3x or 300% for shock value meant almost nothing when you actually took it into context and dug deeper. So he went from 20 to 50 penalty minutes. He also went from 40 down to 20 before...variation happens.

As far as the rest of your post, I'm not sure what you're getting at? You act like Lidstrom being in the league still means the competition is bad because he hasn't been replaced. I'd rather give him credit for still being able to play in the league as an exception. His playstyle lends itself for him to be able to stay around (never relied on strength or speed), his training and work ethic must be god-like, and he was so good that even a decline leaves a spot for him in the league. I'd rather give him credit for being a freak of nature, rather than tear the whole league down for being "unable to replace him". Maybe his given ability was so great and his tenacity to work hard and play won't ALLOW it. A career that spans the modern era of medicine, and the fact he largely escaped any sort of major injuries doesn't hurt his longevity either.

Where are the other 40 something defensemen all over the "watered" down league? I mean, instead of referencing the 100's of players that WERE weeded out and replaced with young talent, you site the outlier as proof that the league is watered down? How does that even make any sense?

And your example of Chelios met the same bill. Hall of fame player playing in a vastly reduced capacity who had a tremendous will to play and work hard. Exception. And the Wings like to have older player mentor their younger players on being a true professional. It'snot liek there's 20 or 30 Chris Chelios' around at 40-42 still playing in the NHL. There's one FREAK of nature doing it. An outlier.

 

[DanZ]

The old probably 90% position used by those who never bother to check and try to bluff their way along.

Let's check the Detroit Red Wings numbers since Lidstrom was constrained to a team and not influenced by the rest of the league.

Regular season, 82 games, both seasons. Lidstrom played 81 games and 80 games respectively.

2003-04 the Red Wings totaled 944 PIM, 2005-06 Red Wings totaled 1103 PIM. So while the Red Wings collectively, with Lidstrom, saw their PIMs increase by ~ 15%, Lidstrom's PIMs almost tripled. The Red Wings adapted much better than Lidstrom.

No crime, same thing happened with Doug Harvey as he aged.

He scored at a PPG pace (80 points, the highest total of his career) and won the Norris. He had no trouble adapting.