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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In the 1980's Rod Langway's game was constantly tested on many levels. Just a few examples, playing the Oilers he would have to adjust from shift to shift, defending against Gretzky's elite finesse game, Messier's power game plus Coffey's speed game from the defense. Lidstrom has never had to face a single opponent with all these attributes at one time.

Throw in the various pressure forechecking teams, the positional teams,teams generating offense from the back end/transition,trap or no trap at a very basic level, the teams like the Nordiques with a European style, the introduction and move to the short shift game which impacted Langways advantages in stamina and the ability to work a long shift exposing the opponents weaknesses in endurance.

Langway was put to a more varied and intensive test on a regular basis.

Lidstrom, especially starting with the short strike season - 1994-95 has played against teams that are images of each other with differences in execution and application of strategies and skills. Every team employs elements of what is known as the trap, every team has dmen that are reasonable adept offensively with results being a function of their supporting cast - your Letang observation testify to this,some are more physical than others. Offense is not overly varied. Teams throw in elements like the east/west game if they have capable players, if it offers a strategic advantage. Pittsburgh with Lemieux and Jagr never fully optimized the talent advantage they had on offense. During the vast majprity of Lidstroms career only two attributes mattered beyond the basics of skating and conditioning.Execution and playing the game not to lose.The two Lidstrom strengths.

despite using so many words to purportedly disagree with me, younare basically saying that the nature of the game in the 1980s was such that it was more likely for defensemen to get votes for the Hart Trophy. Which is exactly what I said.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You're right, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

It's not that Lidstrom backers are "insulted", it's just that this is a message board where people bicker and debate and give their points for their opinions. You shouldn't be insulted if I say this either:

Both Harvey and Lidstrom were considered the best dmen of their era, each winning 7 Norris', multiple Cups, etc. When compared to each other versus their own peers (the only way we can compare them) it's very difficult to separate the two. When you look at the bigger picture though, Lidstrom played at a time when the NHL could draw the best players from all over the world, at a time when hockey had grown in countries other than Canada, whereas in Harvey's NHL the league really only drew from Canada when that one country had far far less people to draw from than now. This should logically give Lidstrom at least a small edge over Harvey if you consider everything else equal. In reality, we shouldn't even be comparing the two because the leagues they played in were so different. Since everyone loves making these lists though, I can't see how someone can give Harvey the benefit of a doubt when we know what the NHL consisted of back in his playing days. No Europeans, no Russians, hardly any Americans, a much smaller Canadian population to pick from = much less talent in the league.

I would like all of those older Canadian posters to consider how they would feel if there were some superstar defenseman in Sweden during the 50's who dominated over there like Harvey did the NHL and Swedish posters acted as if dominating a primarily all-Swedish league was equal to dominating the NHL now. I realize the NHL was supposed to be the best league in the world in the 50's and the Swedish league wasn't, but the point is the NHL of the 50's is not equal to the NHL of today. It simply isn't.

I've argued the Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate many times. I take Lidstrom because he has more personal hardware and was a huge part of more team accomplishments and I believe he was a better defensive player than Bourque. It's obviously close though.

Pretty much agree here and don't have a problem with guys that flip the order in terms of peak ect...

I do have a huge problem though when people act though as if the NHL has remained constant or hasn't changed very much and relies too heavily on the peer argument.

As for Hart voting there has been a noticeable shift away from voting for Dmen for the hart partly due to the different role of Demn in recent years.

There is no lack of talent on the back end in the NHL and for those that argue such just can't or won't appreciate how much the game has changed IMO and the smaller degree of difference in talent(especially in the ability to check and stop the opposition from scoring) and team systems that make it harder for the more skilled players to dominate statistically than in the 80's, 70's and earlier.

 

[quoipourquoi]

despite using so many words to purportedly disagree with me, younare basically saying that the nature of the game in the 1980s was such that it was more likely for defensemen to get votes for the Hart Trophy. Which is exactly what I said.

Okay, again, how many defensemen were in your personal Top 3 since Bourque in 1990 and the supposed decline in recognition after Gretzky's prime? You can say that the nature of the game made it less likely for Hart voters to consider a defenseman, but you haven't said which player in which year was overlooked. We had Coffey getting the Western nomination in 1995 and Pronger in 2000, but can you honestly say that another one deserved it from your own perspective?

If not, I don't understand the point of your argument, because Rod Langway aside, I think most of us legitimately had Bourque as a Top 3 player in at least two seasons, and not just because Gretzky made other forwards look bad.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Othres

I think Harvey deserved a lot of credit for defining a playing style that is still the gold standard for defencemen today. I've said earlier that I think his influence on the way the game is played today is bigger than Orr's. So yeah, Harvey was had more influence on the position than Lidstrom.

On the other hand, you fail to mention what was so "new or special or distinct" about Bourque, Coffey and Potvin compared to Lidstrom. It's not like Paul Coffey invented then end-to-end rush, he was just extremely good at it. They were all heavily influenced by Orr, while Lidstrom plays a more conservative style like Harvey.

It's fair to debate who is more influential, but saying that Lidstrom does not have a distinct style of play is just baffling. Just about every article about Lidstrom mentions his clean, poke-checking style. No, he didn't invent that style, but he played it better than anybody else. In my view he has one of the more distinct playing styles of his generation.

Denis Potvin. Was bigger than Orr and Harvey. Was the first to blend the elements that Orr and Harvey introduced with size and punishing physicality. Orr and Harvey would hit but lacked the size to punish physically. Potvin showed that the various attributes that Orr and Harvey brought could be learned by players who were over 6' and beyond 200 lb.

Paul Coffey brought speed to the position. Bobby Orr was an incredible skater who did things on skates that were deemed impossible until he showed that they could be done while playing defense with all the other skills short of physicality. Paul Coffey reducing the position to speed was a forerunner of the short shift game. Playing shifts upwards of two minutes would require a strong pairing to cover for Coffey.Short shifts reduced Coffey's effectiveness since in 30-40 shifts he could be played. Reducing the shifts to 30-40 seconds allows speed to be paired with even the basic stay at home type while producing net positive results. Today an example would be PK Subban,. Speed plus some offensive talent.Play him with Hal Gill for 30-40 seconds during 5 on 5 situations and you get some net positive results. But the skills to sustain any pressure consistantly are not there.

Ray Bourque showed that the short shift game could be all inclusive for defensemen. No skills or attributes had to be sacrificed at any time. He played the game just as well before the short shift era and after easily shifting from one aspect of his game to another.

Claiming that Harvey played a conservative style is not accurate. Harvey played a style that placed greater demands on the forwards.
Lidstrom playing a distinct style, Style is rather commonplace today - Leetch Numminen, Zubov, down to Tomas Kaberle all were "cerebral" dmen whose value was defined by their ability to stay on the ice and simply perform. Some brought a higher amount of creativity - Leetch but basically it was a question of repeating execution. Lidstrom was by far the best but he was not unique.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Potvin did not get much Hart attention after Trottier and Bossy joined the team and Robinson was overshadowed by LaFleur in hart voting. Pretty common for a top defenseman to get overlooked in Hart voting with top forwards on the team.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Talent and the Hart

despite using so many words to purportedly disagree with me, younare basically saying that the nature of the game in the 1980s was such that it was more likely for defensemen to get votes for the Hart Trophy. Which is exactly what I said.

Talent is the requisite to adapt to the variables that comprise the nature of the game. Pronger won the Hart in 2000 yet the talent he showed during the 1999-2000 season was rather narrow and limited in scope.It made a difference to the Blues that one season hence the Hart Yet winning the Hart does not elevate Pronger above non-Hart winning dmen like Lidstrom, Bourque, Harvey and so forth since he has never shown the talent levels of such dmen.

Winning the Norris does not mean that the dman is remotely close to being a serious Hart contender. Under certain circumstances he may be but they are not a function of era rather the Hart would reflect how his defensive skills made a difference.

In the context of 2010-11 the Hart finalists all made a greater difference to their teams than the the Norris finalists or winner.

 

[Ward Cornell]

O6 era dmen would be challenged by AS quality players every game. Today the NHL is far from that level and drifting further away every season.

Also team defensive systems helps immeasurably to a defencemans credentials from the 90's onward.

 

[RECsGuy*]

I really like Lidstrom but I cant get past the rather shallow argument that much of his sucess is the product of his team. If it werent for his stint with the Rangers, I could say the same about Harvey, but there it sits. Potvin, Bourque and Harvey all rank above him for me.

Have the Red Wings made Lidstrom great or has Lidstrom made the Red Wings great?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I really like Lidstrom but I cant get past the rather shallow argument that much of his sucess is the product of his team. If it werent for his stint with the Rangers, I could say the same about Harvey, but there it sits. Potvin, Bourque and Harvey all rank above him for me.

Pointing to Harvey's time with the Rangers is a rather flimsy reason to pick him over Lidstrom. And Potvin's Islanders weren't exactly weak.

 

[Rhiessan71]

As for Lidstrom's competition, I think Niedermayer, Leetch, Blake and Pronger are all fine Hall of Fame defensemen. Especially Scott.

They are but they are still not on the same level, especially in consistency, as what Bourque was going up against. Hell, forget about Coffey then, just going up against a prime Chelios year in and year out is enough of an argument right there.

My biggest point still stands, Bourque having a slightly off year would cost him the Norris, year to year, every year. That hasn't been even remotely the case with Lidstrom. Not year to year, every year.
Not even saying Lidstrom didn't deserve his Norris' but some were vastly stronger than others.
Hell, I'm not even saying that Lidstrom couldn't of won a couple of Norris going up against Bourque and Chelios in their primes but he sure as hell wouldn't have any where close to 7. Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay, again, how many defensemen were in your personal Top 3 since Bourque in 1990 and the supposed decline in recognition after Gretzky's prime? You can say that the nature of the game made it less likely for Hart voters to consider a defenseman, but you haven't said which player in which year was overlooked. We had Coffey getting the Western nomination in 1995 and Pronger in 2000, but can you honestly say that another one deserved it from your own perspective?

If not, I don't understand the point of your argument, because Rod Langway aside, I think most of us legitimately had Bourque as a Top 3 player in at least two seasons, and not just because Gretzky made other forwards look bad.

for your first question, Scott Stevens and possibly Ray Bourque in 1994, Lidstrom in 2001, 2002, 2006 could have all been Hart finalists in different eras. There are perhaps more, I just looked quickly because it isn't really important to my point.

My main point is that comparing Hart records between eras just doesn't work without taking into account positional biases between eras.

In the 80s, you had guys like Rod Langway and Mark Howe racking in the Hart votes. Mike Liut, Pete Peeters, and Grant Fuhr were all runners up for the Hart in different seasons.

By the mid 90s onward, defensemen just didn't get Hart consideration, period, with the exception of Pronger and the media hype of "defensemen don't get their due" that year. There were quite a few years when the top 7-8 vote getters were forwards. You just didn't see that in the 80s. Whatever the reason, forwards take a a much higher percentage of Hart votes since the early 90s.

 

[Rhiessan71]

There's also a difference between getting decent shares in the Hart voting and losing the Hart by a 2 votes brought on by one biased/idiot reporter.

In my mind and many others that were around at the time, the '90 Hart is Bourque's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My biggest point still stands, Bourque having a slightly off year would cost him the Norris, year to year, every year. That hasn't been even remotely the case with Lidstrom. Not year to year, every year.
.

agree with most of what you say, but this one point in particular is absolutely true an the biggest difference between their competition on defense an why counting Norrises is silly

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There's also a difference between getting decent shares in the Hart voting and losing the Hart by a 2 votes brought on by one biased/idiot reporter.

In my mind and many others that were around at the time, the '90 Hart is Bourque's.

Oh, no doubt here. It was easier to get a distant 2nd or 3rd place finish at the time, but nobody came close tonehat Bourque did in 1990

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Flimsy yes, but is there. As for the Islanders, they were very weak for his first 2-3 years and for the later part of his career were no great shakes. I am not saying the Wings made Lidstrom, but you put him on any other team, of this era and he is not Nik Ldstrom.

Is your argument that playing on a worse team makes a star a better player? Would you say then that Lidstrom's 2011 was much better than Bourque's 2001?

Edit: sorry for the tone of the above.

Anyway, I see your point in that Harvey's Norris with the Rangers proved he could excel in any environement. But I donno. He played a year and a half of good hockey with them before falling apart. I mean, it's not Lidstrom's fault that he didn't do anything to piss off management and get traded towards the end of his prime.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Team Factor

I really like Lidstrom but I cant get past the rather shallow argument that much of his sucess is the product of his team. If it werent for his stint with the Rangers, I could say the same about Harvey, but there it sits. Potvin, Bourque and Harvey all rank above him for me.

Team is a catchall expression for what basically reflects organizational consistency.

In Lidstrom's case it is as close as possible to a mutually beneficial relationship. Consistent opportunity with consistent execution.

Cannot think of another player who has enjoyed such an ideal situation for the length of a twenty season career.

That said. The results have to be viewed in the same context.

Others can be evaluated under different organizational circumstances, systems, challenges. This is not possible for Nicklas Lidstrom. Conversely it is only fair to evaluate how his performance in his later years is effected by various player management tactics used by the Red Wing coaches to obtain optimum advantage. Likewise it is fair to evaluate how players like Harvey, Bourque and others adapted to changes in organizational circumstances when traded. The results and how they were obtained and the level of contribution come into play.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom playing a distinct style, Style is rather commonplace today - Leetch Numminen, Zubov, down to Tomas Kaberle all were "cerebral" dmen whose value was defined by their ability to stay on the ice and simply perform. Some brought a higher amount of creativity - Leetch but basically it was a question of repeating execution. Lidstrom was by far the best but he was not unique.

seriously? The only one of those guys who played even close to Lidstrom's style is Numminen. I mean, come on now. Brian Leetch, the puck rusher?

Lidstrom is to the "non physical stay at home skilled defenseman" what Patrick Roy is to the butterfly. Not the first, but the one to perfect the style and then be widely copied.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Talent is the requisite to adapt to the variables that comprise the nature of the game. Pronger won the Hart in 2000 yet the talent he showed during the 1999-2000 season was rather narrow and limited in scope.It made a difference to the Blues that one season hence the Hart Yet winning the Hart does not elevate Pronger above non-Hart winning dmen like Lidstrom, Bourque, Harvey and so forth since he has never shown the talent levels of such dmen.

Winning the Norris does not mean that the dman is remotely close to being a serious Hart contender. Under certain circumstances he may be but they are not a function of era rather the Hart would reflect how his defensive skills made a difference.

In the context of 201-11 the Hart finalists all made a greater difference to their teams than the the Norris finalists or winner.

While Thomas is a great goalie an extremely argument could be made that Chara had more impact in the games he played in than Perry and certainly more than Sedin or St. Louis. Unfortunately for the most part the hart trophy in recent memory has been stat driven and soem selections are extremely debatable IMO.

 

[quoipourquoi]

for your first question, Scott Stevens and possibly Ray Bourque in 1994, Lidstrom in 2001, 2002, 2006 could have all been Hart finalists in different eras. There are perhaps more, I just looked quickly because it isn't really important to my point.

My main point is that comparing Hart records between eras just doesn't work without taking into account positional biases between eras.

In the 80s, you had guys like Rod Langway and Mark Howe racking in the Hart votes. Mike Liut, Pete Peeters, and Grant Fuhr were all runners up for the Hart in different seasons.

By the mid 90s onward, defensemen just didn't get Hart consideration, period, with the exception of Pronger and the media hype of "defensemen don't get their due" that year. There were quite a few years when the top 7-8 vote getters were forwards. You just didn't see that in the 80s. Whatever the reason, forwards take a a much higher percentage of Hart votes since the early 90s.

I'm not talking about who could've been a Hart winner in a perfect storm season; that's a game one could play with anyone's career and make them look like a 1st ballot HOFer (hyperbole). Which defenseman deserved Hart consideration in your mind over the actual candidates for the trophy and didn't get it?

Putting Scott Stevens (1994) up against weak Hart candidates *cough* this year *cough* would've been an excellent opportunity for a nomination, but there were better players in 1994, and there was really no reason for him to sneak up high on people's ballots, even with Vanbiesbrouck's home-stretch Hart and Vezina collapse.

It's not that they didn't get consideration; they just weren't as good as the goalies and forwards who were nominated.

Were Stevens and Bourque actually better than at least three of Fedorov, Vanbiesbrouck, Gilmour, Hasek, and Roy?

Was Lidstrom actually better than Sakic, Jagr, or Lemieux in 2001? Or Theodore, Iginla, Roy, or Burke in 2002? Or the aforementioned Thornton, Kiprusoff, or Jagr in 2006?


My answer to all of those is no, and it's not because of a bias against their position. There were a lot of forwards and goalies having some exceptional, ground-breaking seasons for themselves in the 90s and 00s - even if it was just for one year (Iginla, Fedorov).

The defensemen who did likewise, Coffey in 1995 and Pronger in 2000, were recognized in their Conference and League respectively. Weaker competition? Maybe - and if there is any reason that Hart record comparisons don't work out as smooth as silk in the last 30 years, it is because of this and not positional bias.

But Coffey and Pronger were Top 3 players in those years, and that's my point: No defenseman who deserved a Hart nomination against his immediate contemporaries in the last 20 years didn't get one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not talking about who could've been a Hart winner in a perfect storm season; that's a game one could play with anyone's career and make them look like a 1st ballot HOFer (hyperbole). Which defenseman deserved Hart consideration in your mind over the actual candidates for the trophy and didn't get it?

Putting Scott Stevens (1994) up against weak Hart candidates *cough* this year *cough* would've been an excellent opportunity for a nomination, but there were better players in 1994, and there was really no reason for him to sneak up high on people's ballots, even with Vanbiesbrouck's home-stretch Hart and Vezina collapse.

It's not that they didn't get consideration; they just weren't as good as the goalies and forwards who were nominated.

Were Stevens and Bourque actually better than at least three of Fedorov, Vanbiesbrouck, Gilmour, Hasek, and Roy?

Was Lidstrom actually better than Sakic, Jagr, or Lemieux in 2001? Or Theodore, Iginla, Roy, or Burke in 2002? Or the aforementioned Thornton, Kiprusoff, or Jagr in 2006?


My answer to all of those is no, and it's not because of a bias against their position. There were a lot of forwards and goalies having some exceptional, ground-breaking seasons for themselves in the 90s and 00s - even if it was just for one year (Iginla, Fedorov).

The defensemen who did likewise, Coffey in 1995 and Pronger in 2000, were recognized in their Conference and League respectively. Weaker competition? Maybe - and if there is any reason that Hart record comparisons don't work out as smooth as silk in the last 30 years, it is because of this and not positional bias.

But Coffey and Pronger were Top 3 players in those years, and that's my point: No defenseman who deserved a Hart nomination against his immediate contemporaries in the last 20 years didn't get one.

since you insist on playing this game, I think Lidstrom was "more valuable" to his team than Jagr in 2001, and possibly more than a half season of Lemieux.

He was a better player than Roy, Iginla, and Burke in 2002, though Roy was probably more valuable.

Lidstrom was probably the best player in the league in 2006, but was not "as valuable" as the three finalists who did more to carry their teams.

Fedorov was clearly top dog in 1994, but Stevens was as valuable as anyone else, with very simialr credentials to Pronger in 2000.

Now I'll ask you a question that IMO I'd more relevant to the conversation - do you think that Rod Langway's 2nd and 4th place finishes in Hart voting were better seasons than any Lidstrom ever had? Was Mark Howe's season as a Hart finalist better than any season Lidstrom had?

Comparing Hart voting records of defensemen in the post-Norris era is a terrible way of evaluating them, unless the defenseman in question actually came close to winning it, and even then, it depends largely on external factors (injuries to Lemieux in 1990 plus LA's bad season, injuries to Jagr in 2000).

 

[C77]

I don't agree.

I think Potvin should be considered #2 of all time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

since you insist on playing this game, I think Lidstrom was "more valuable" to his team than Jagr in 2001, and possibly more than a half season of Lemieux.

He was a better player than Roy, Iginla, and Burke in 2002, though Roy was probably more valuable.

Lidstrom was probably the best player in the league in 2006, but was not "as valuable" as the three finalists who did more to carry their teams.

Fedorov was clearly top dog in 1994, but Stevens was as valuable as anyone else, with very simialr credentials to Pronger in 2000.

Now I'll ask you a question that IMO I'd more relevant to the conversation - do you think that Rod Langway's 2nd and 4th place finishes in Hart voting were better seasons than any Lidstrom ever had? Was Mark Howe's season as a Hart finalist better than any season Lidstrom had?

Comparing Hart voting records of defensemen in the post-Norris era is a terrible way of evaluating them, unless the defenseman in question actually came close to winning it, and even then, it depends largely on external factors (injuries to Lemieux in 1990 plus LA's bad season, injuries to Jagr in 2000).

I insisted on "playing this game" because after however many times I've asked, you never told me how YOU felt about the players. If I wanted to read Hart voting records, I'd go to Page 5 of the Awards thread, thank you.

If you actually think Lidstrom was the best player in 2002 (and better than Iginla and Theodore and company), that's fine. But this is the first time you've said it. I don't think he was. No one I talked to back then thought he was. For these reasons, I'm not going to magically know that YOU thought he was, and subsequently understand why you're frustrated with the Hart voting record for defensemen.

It's not enough to say that there's a problem with the voting record, TDMM, and have the rest of us understand where you're coming from; you have to explain where you think they went wrong.


I think Lidstrom in 2000 and 2006 was better than anything from Howe and Langway, but I don't think it was better than what we saw from Pronger/Jagr/Bure and Thornton/Jagr/Kiprusoff, and that counts for something too. Despite the fact that a lot of spreadsheet posts in this forum operate under the idea that all Harts, Norrises, 1st Place Finishes, and Top 10 Finishes are created equal, I would like to think that deep down we all know better. I've evenly not so subtly said in my last post that Scott Stevens (1994) mops the floor with Corey Perry (2011).

But there is still something to be said about Nicklas Lidstrom, who people are crowning above some really major players in the history of the sport (Bourque, Shore, and Harvey for defensemen specifically; everyone not named Gretzky/Lemieux since 1979 in general), not transcending past his direct contemporaries in the other positions (which has been a shuffle of about 25 different players since 1998, meaning that this is not a case of a select group of players having a stranglehold on the trophy and nominations) and being a Top 3 player at least once in his career - both in my mind and in the collective mind of Hart voters.

If he's going to be lumped in with the 15 greatest players of all-time, I think he should've had a season that made everyone turn their head. He caught your attention in 2002 and 2006. Based upon the utter lack of outrage for him not receiving a nomination in those years, I don't think I'm in the minority in thinking that he wasn't a Top 3 guy in either year.

He peaked better than actual finalists Howe and Langway, yeah. But the real issue is that his best year was just above Sergei Zubov's best year, whose peak could be transplanted into advantageous award situations too... despite being just Sergei Zubov. Lidstrom's peak isn't high enough for the praise he gets. That's where I'm coming from here, and any comment about Hart voting records is my polite way of saying that I'm not alone in thinking that he peaked low for a supposed top player of all-time. I'm a fan of career consistency, but Ron Francis isn't in my Top 20 of All-Time either, if you catch my drift.

 

[WingsFan95]

They are but they are still not on the same level, especially in consistency, as what Bourque was going up against. Hell, forget about Coffey then, just going up against a prime Chelios year in and year out is enough of an argument right there.

My biggest point still stands, Bourque having a slightly off year would cost him the Norris, year to year, every year. That hasn't been even remotely the case with Lidstrom. Not year to year, every year.
Not even saying Lidstrom didn't deserve his Norris' but some were vastly stronger than others.
Hell, I'm not even saying that Lidstrom couldn't of won a couple of Norris going up against Bourque and Chelios in their primes but he sure as hell wouldn't have any where close to 7. Of that I have absolutely no doubt.

But then it comes down to how much weight one holds to the Norris, I for one don't think this year's Norris elevated Lidstrom's argument for Top 5 list all that much. Since 97-98 Lidstrom has been a 1st Team All-Star all but one season.

But playing devil's advocate, how about less of a fact Chelios was better competition and more that Bourque needed a fantastic season to win in a tight race because he wasn't as great. How about Lidstrom creating separation by his sheer greatness?

People can say the same of Jagr and that his scoring titles came against paltry competition because Gretzky and Lemieux weren't around.

I have no problem people picking Bourque over Lids, I said in another thread it was between them for 2nd place. I have inherent bias on the issue.

 

[RECsGuy*]

We tend to deify things once they are gone for a significant period of time (our loved ones, players, the Whalers unis, etc.) and it will be no different with Nicklas Lidstrom.

Just like Harvey and Orr, when folks look at the Swede's accolades decades down the road, they won't give a **** who his competition was.

No one gives a **** that 1/4 of Roger Federer's grand slam titles have come against Andy "sucks balls" Roddick, and it will be no different for Vasteras's finest.

The adage "no one remembers who came in 2nd" is one Lidstrom haters will have to come to accept when his 7 Norrises, 4 Cups, 1 Smythe, 10 First Team All-Star selections, 2 Second Team All-Star seletions, Olympic Gold, Olympc All-Star Team selection are brought up.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I insisted on "playing this game" because after however many times I've asked, you never told me how YOU felt about the players. If I wanted to read Hart voting records, I'd go to Page 5 of the Awards thread, thank you.

If you actually think Lidstrom was the best player in 2002 (and better than Iginla and Theodore and company), that's fine. But this is the first time you've said it. I don't think he was. No one I talked to back then thought he was. For these reasons, I'm not going to magically know that YOU thought he was, and subsequently understand why you're frustrated with the Hart voting record for defensemen.

It's not enough to say that there's a problem with the voting record, TDMM, and have the rest of us understand where you're coming from; you have to explain where you think they went wrong.

Well, the Hockey News did come out with an issue in 2000 or 2001 or so that said that Lidstrom was the best overall player in the league (and it sparked a huge controversy; am I the only one who remembers this?) I do remember I was one of the few on the old ESPN message boards who absolutely agreed with THN at the time.

I guess I did go too far out of my way to dodge, but I did simply because it really wasn't an argument I felt like getting into. I basically don't think a defenseman's Hart record is very meaningful after the Norris, though obviously winning (Pronger) or almost winning (Bourque) is evidence of a great season.

I think Lidstrom in 2000 and 2006 was better than anything from Howe and Langway, but I don't think it was better than what we saw from Pronger/Jagr/Bure and Thornton/Jagr/Kiprusoff, and that counts for something too. Despite the fact that a lot of spreadsheet posts in this forum operate under the idea that all Harts, Norrises, 1st Place Finishes, and Top 10 Finishes are created equal, I would like to think that deep down we all know better. I've evenly not so subtly said in my last post that Scott Stevens (1994) mops the floor with Corey Perry (2011).

For all our arguing, I think we agree more than we disagree here. I don't think Lidstrom's best seasons were any better Bure or Thornton's one great season, but I don't think they was necessarily worse, either.

It's hard to compare defensemen to the other positions - hockey stats for defense suck - and preventing scoring chances isn't the easiest thing to see. So both statistically and visually, it is harder for a defenseman to stand out. With basically two exceptions (Bourque 1990 and Pronger 2000), no defenseman came close to winning the Hart. But they consistently got a larger number of 2nd and 3rd place votes in the 1980s than afterwards. That's my main point.

But there is still something to be said about Nicklas Lidstrom, who people are crowning above some really major players in the history of the sport (Bourque, Shore, and Harvey for defensemen specifically; everyone not named Gretzky/Lemieux since 1979 in general), not transcending past his direct contemporaries in the other positions (which has been a shuffle of about 25 different players since 1998, meaning that this is not a case of a select group of players having a stranglehold on the trophy and nominations) and being a Top 3 player at least once in his career - both in my mind and in the collective mind of Hart voters.

If he's going to be lumped in with the 15 greatest players of all-time, I think he should've had a season that made everyone turn their head. He caught your attention in 2002 and 2006. Based upon the utter lack of outrage for him not receiving a nomination in those years, I don't think I'm in the minority in thinking that he wasn't a Top 3 guy in either year.

I see what you're saying, but the same thing kind of applies to Doug Harvey, no? He really never got close to winning the Hart (but does have a better record than Lidstrom).

I mean, the kids always make the argument that it's harder to stand out now with 1) the increased talent pool and 2) hockey being as much about fitting into a system as individual talent. I think there is at least a little truth to that. It's quite possible that no player post-1995 or so will stand out, unless that guy is a Orr/Gretzky/Howe/Mario type talent. Too early to

He peaked better than actual finalists Howe and Langway, yeah. But the real issue is that his best year was just above Sergei Zubov's best year, whose peak could be transplanted into advantageous award situations too... despite being just Sergei Zubov. Lidstrom's peak isn't high enough for the praise he gets. That's where I'm coming from here, and any comment about Hart voting records is my polite way of saying that I'm not alone in thinking that he peaked low for a supposed top player of all-time. I'm a fan of career consistency, but Ron Francis isn't in my Top 20 of All-Time either, if you catch my drift.

Ron Francis isn't in my top 100, but that's another story. I'm certainly not alone in thinking Lidstrom was the most consistently dominant player of the first decade of this century. You're right that his lack of a super dominant season is something - honestly, to me the lack of a Bourque in 1990 season is enough to keep Lidstrom very slightly under Bourque. But not that far under.