Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[chaosrevolver]

Anyone willing to argue that Bourque is number two all-time?

Based off what I read lately..he is climbing for me. The guy was utterly dominant for about fifteen seasons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Offensive Catalyst to Playoffs Intro

one other thing about offensive dominance for post-expansion defensemen that people aren't considering, is the whole "leading the team" thing. I'd take 70 points if it led the team, compared to 80 points when there were teammates with 90 and 95.

Rankings on team in points in seasons with 70+ games:

Bourque: 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 6.
Lidstrom: 6, 9, 8, 8, 5, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 10, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2.
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6.

Name|top-1|top-2|top-3|top-4
Bourque|5|10|15|18
Lidstrom|0|3|8|12
Potvin|4|5|8|10

The same premise that says the player with the fewest points on a forward line is likely contributing the least offensively, can hold true for defensemen in a similar way. If you led your team in points, including all the forwards, then you were the offensive catalyst of your team. If a few forwards had more points than you, you deserve to be commended for a high point total but it must be acknowledged that you benefitted from the opportunity to participate in some goals with those players.

This all assumes that these defensemen played with the top forwards on the team often. Considering they were 30 minute players who played most of every powerplay, I would say that is a fair assumption.

Interesting data providing a valid snapshot of offensive contribution during the regular season. Let's expand this approach to the playoffs, including the O6 era and see if an album with a greater variety of snapshots providing greater appreciation emerges. This should take a number of posts over the next few days.

The regular season defines the teams that qualify for the playoffs. The teams' offensive catalyst(s) and the areas or players who could or should contribute more offensively. The regular season also tells the opposition where to focus their defensive strategies, which offensive catalyst(s) should be limited. Basic idea is to reduce the opposition's production and minimize the length of their participation in the playoffs.

 

[BraveCanadian]

one other thing about offensive dominance for post-expansion defensemen that people aren't considering, is the whole "leading the team" thing. I'd take 70 points if it led the team, compared to 80 points when there were teammates with 90 and 95.

Rankings on team in points in seasons with 70+ games:

Bourque: 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 6.
Lidstrom: 6, 9, 8, 8, 5, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 10, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2.
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6.

Name|top-1|top-2|top-3|top-4
Bourque|5|10|15|18
Lidstrom|0|3|8|12
Potvin|4|5|8|10

The same premise that says the player with the fewest points on a forward line is likely contributing the least offensively, can hold true for defensemen in a similar way. If you led your team in points, including all the forwards, then you were the offensive catalyst of your team. If a few forwards had more points than you, you deserve to be commended for a high point total but it must be acknowledged that you benefitted from the opportunity to participate in some goals with those players.

This all assumes that these defensemen played with the top forwards on the team often. Considering they were 30 minute players who played most of every powerplay, I would say that is a fair assumption.

I get what you're saying, but this is really just another way of saying Bourque's teams weren't as strong overall as Lidstrom's and Potvin's.

Potvin stopped leading his team in scoring as soon as the Isles got better. Does that mean he was worse once the team was better?

I don't think so.. his 100 point season was when he was 3rd in scoring for example.

This ranking is going to penalize Lidstrom for being on a team that was managed well his entire career. And that doesn't make sense to me. In Bobby Orr's highest scoring season ever he didn't lead the team in scoring. Was Phil Esposito stirring the drink? Because that isn't what I hear around these boards constantly regarding that season, for example.

 

[overpass]

Anyone willing to argue that Bourque is number two all-time?

Based off what I read lately..he is climbing for me. The guy was utterly dominant for about fifteen seasons.

The usual reason for placing Bourque fourth is that his peak level of play wasn't quite good enough to match the top three.

I wonder how much that has to do with Bourque playing at the same time as Gretzky and Lemieux. Unlike Shore, Harvey, Orr, or Lidstrom, Bourque was never and could never be a contender for best player in the league. When Bourque faced Gretzky or Lemieux head to head, he lost in the Finals or ended up on the wrong end of highlight videos.

The case for Bourque is based on career value over peak and/or arguing that the 1985-1995 era had the best top-end, all-time talent ever. I can buy the era argument, but even so I'm not sure Bourque's peak is good enough for me to rank him higher than fourth.

 

[Pear Juice]

I get what you're saying, but this is really just another way of saying Bourque's teams weren't as strong overall as Lidstrom's and Potvin's.

Potvin stopped leading his team in scoring as soon as the Isles got better. Does that mean he was worse once the team was better?

I don't think so.. his 100 point season was when he was 3rd in scoring for example.

This ranking is going to penalize Lidstrom for being on a team that was managed well his entire career. And that doesn't make sense to me. In Bobby Orr's highest scoring season ever he didn't lead the team in scoring. Was Phil Esposito stirring the drink? Because that isn't what I hear around these boards constantly regarding that season, for example.

Exactly the point I tried to make earlier. This analysis is very strongly team dependent.

As a reference example Denis Savard led the Blackhawks in scoring 7 years in a row from 1982-1988. Dale Hawerchuk led the Jets in scoring 9 years in a row from 1982-1990. It's alot more likely that a star player (whether it's a defenseman or a forward) will lead a team in scoring on a non-homogenous team such as the mid 70s Islanders or the early/mid 80s Bruins than on such a dense team as the mid-90s Red Wings.

 

[Pear Juice]

The usual reason for placing Bourque fourth is that his peak level of play wasn't quite good enough to match the top three.

I wonder how much that has to do with Bourque playing at the same time as Gretzky and Lemieux. Unlike Shore, Harvey, Orr, or Lidstrom, Bourque was never and could never be a contender for best player in the league. When Bourque faced Gretzky or Lemieux head to head, he lost in the Finals or ended up on the wrong end of highlight videos.

The case for Bourque is based on career value over peak and/or arguing that the 1985-1995 era had the best top-end, all-time talent ever. I can buy the era argument, but even so I'm not sure Bourque's peak is good enough for me to rank him higher than fourth.

I'm actually leaning towards placing Bourque at least 3rd. But then I'm not that high on Eddie Shore. Lots of good stuff but also quite an unpredictable character, from what I understand.

Bourque was voted into one of the post-season allstar teams 17 years in a row from 1980 to 1996. That is an absolutely unbelievable feat. The only player that can rival such a consistant level of dominance is Gordie Howe. Considering defensemen only Raymond is reigning in absolute majesty in the longevity department.

He did this despite facing what is probably the toughest contemporary competition of all candidates with players such as Robinson, Potvin, Howe, Chelios, Coffey, Langway, McInnis, Leetch, Lidström and Stevens. All of them will likely show up in this vote in the next few rounds. Give Raymond Bourque the defensive competition of Lidström or Orr and I'm convinced he would have a boatload of Norris trophies.

The backside of Bourque is for my eyes the lack of team success. Sure individual ability can only take you so far, but in a way it's a bit unsettling that what I might believe is the 3rd or even 2nd best defenseman of all time never won anything before playing on an amazing team at 41 years of age. Granted, Bourque played a big part on that cup-winning Avalanche team. But still. It's a weird feeling, it's almost like he was never a winner. But then again, when he was given the chance, he took it. The sign of a winner.

How would you rate Bourque's contribution to the Canda Cup-winning squads in 84 and 87? He led all defensemen in scoring in 1987.

 

[plusandminus]

Exactly the point I tried to make earlier. This analysis is very strongly team dependent.

As a reference example Denis Savard led the Blackhawks in scoring 7 years in a row from 1982-1988. Dale Hawerchuk led the Jets in scoring 9 years in a row from 1982-1990. It's alot more likely that a star player (whether it's a defenseman or a forward) will lead a team in scoring on a non-homogenous team such as the mid 70s Islanders or the early/mid 80s Bruins than on such a dense team as the mid-90s Red Wings.

And Mats Sundin led Toronto in scoring for even more seasons.

Regarding your next post, concensus seems to agree with you. On the other hand, Lidstrom has had to face all the best players, while in the 1970s and 1980s (and to a lesser extent earlier) many of the best players didn't play in the NHL thus making it easier for those who played there to shine.

I often think about basketball as a comparison. Jordan, Magic, Stockton and so on. The 1992 dream team, were they really better than the guys who are now around? (This is probably off-topic.) Same with the icon guys like Bourque, Potvin, MacInnis, etc. who dominated both in the stats and in a visual way. Maybe it was easier for defencemen to shine earlier on, than in today's game?

 

[Mancini0518]

I'm actually leaning towards placing Bourque at least 3rd. But then I'm not that high on Eddie Shore. Lots of good stuff but also quite an unpredictable character, from what I understand.

Bourque was voted into one of the post-season allstar teams 17 years in a row from 1980 to 1996. That is an absolutely unbelievable feat. The only player that can rival such a consistant level of dominance is Gordie Howe. Considering defensemen only Raymond is reigning in absolute majesty in the longevity department.

He did this despite facing what is probably the toughest contemporary competition of all candidates with players such as Robinson, Potvin, Howe, Chelios, Coffey, Langway, McInnis, Leetch, Lidström and Stevens. All of them will likely show up in this vote in the next few rounds. Give Raymond Bourque the defensive competition of Lidström or Orr and I'm convinced he would have a boatload of Norris trophies.

The backside of Bourque is for my eyes the lack of team success. Sure individual ability can only take you so far, but in a way it's a bit unsettling that what I might believe is the 3rd or even 2nd best defenseman of all time never won anything before playing on an amazing team at 41 years of age. Granted, Bourque played a big part on that cup-winning Avalanche team. But still. It's a weird feeling, it's almost like he was never a winner. But then again, when he was given the chance, he took it. The sign of a winner.

How would you rate Bourque's contribution to the Canda Cup-winning squads in 84 and 87? He led all defensemen in scoring in 1987.

How much can you punish him for running into Dynasties/consensus top 3 or 4 players ever? He is third all time in playoff points and tenth all time in playoff assists so its not like he was terrible in the Playoffs for the Bruins which Eddie Shore had proven to be.
I am much higher on Bourque than a lot of posters here I imagine and i also believe the gap from Lidstrom to Bourque is quite large. I would put Bourque at 2 behind Orr because many of his career numbers are just too great to overlook.

1) 5 Norris trophies going up against the likes of Robinson, Potvin, Howe, Chelios, Coffey, Langway, McInnis, Leetch, Lidström and Stevens. I would say that this is equally as impressive as Orr's eight Norris' primarily because Orr outside of Brad Park didn't have much competition throughout his career. Bourque was able to win five when most of his competitors were in their prime.

2) First all time in points by a defenseman. This may be more a result of his longevity but its amazing to me that he scored 500 more points than Robinson and Potvin (yes it was a different era) However i simply cannot wrap my mind around it. All time leader in assists as well.

3) 17 straight post season all star teams. Again this was with the competition listed above

 

[pluppe]

I once saw numbers of win-loss differential for players. Meaning wich players had the highest number of wins when playing if you subtracted losses. I think Robinson was the leader at the time. Does anybody have these?

 

[Dreakmur]

Anyone willing to argue that Bourque is number two all-time?

Based off what I read lately..he is climbing for me. The guy was utterly dominant for about fifteen seasons.

Just need to look at him vs. Harvey head to head. I'll start doing it up.

 

[Dreakmur]

Norris Voting:
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd*, 2nd*
Bourqe - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 7th, 7th, 7th

After eliminating the equal finishes....
Harvey - 1st, 1st
Bourque - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 7th, 7th, 7th

Hart Voting:
Harvey - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 5th
Bourque - 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th

After eliminating the equals....
Harvey - 3rd, 5th
Bourque - 2nd, 6th, 8th, 10th

Regular Season Point Finishes
Harvey – 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th
Bourque – 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th

After eliminating equals....
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 10th
Bourque - 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th

Play-off Point Finishes:
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 5th
Bourque - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th

After eliminating equals....
Harvey - 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd
Bourque - 2nd, 5th

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Just need to look at him vs. Harvey head to head. I'll start doing it up.

I've always thought they were about equal offensively, with Harvey being better defensively and the better playoff performer (not saying Bourque wasn't great in those areas).

Also, I just can't get past Harvey probably being the most important player on what is generally considered the greatest team of all time. Might not be completely fair to Bourque given the teams he was on, but you have to give Harvey some credit for that.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Anyone willing to argue that Bourque is number two all-time?

Based off what I read lately..he is climbing for me. The guy was utterly dominant for about fifteen seasons.

In virtually every top defenceman ranking that I have compiled I normally have Bourque at number two, but that list that Dreakmur posted has me re-considering that position.

If one is talking primarily about career consistency and overall longevity then Bourque is almost certainly the most impressive defenceman of all-time (injuries having obviously ruined Bobby's longevity) from that standpoint. First all-time in goals and points by a defenceman, twenty one seasons between First Team All-Star and Norris Trophy selections, five Norris Trophies in a period generally considered to have had the greatest number of elite defenders in history, nineteen total all-star team selections out of twenty one full campaigns, and the best Hart Trophy voting record post-expansion by a country mile with runner-up finishes to Gretzky (1987) and Messier (1990).

If one is talking about peak performance however, then the discussion becomes a little more muddled and contentious in terms of evaluating the candidates. Shore's bare minimum seven likely Norris Trophies (and possibly as many as nine according to some analysts on here), in addition to the four Hart Trophies (keeping in mind voters were much more open-minded to defencemen winning in the pre-war period), and a period in which he was considered hockey's greatest player gives him a probable higher peak than Bourque. Add in Doug Harvey's seven Norrises in eight seasons and his general consensus as being quite possibly the greatest defensive defenceman ever, not to mention the "straw that stirred the drink" of hockey's most dominant dynasty, and the discussion becomes even more problematic depending on how one reconciles upper-echelon performance with longevity.

I'd like to see more observations on both sides of the equation (the pro-Bourque and pro-Harvey/pro-Shore camps) before making my final decision this weekend.

 

[Dreakmur]

Ray Bourque's offensive peak vs. Doug Harvey's offensive peak

5 Year Peak: 1984-88 for Bourque vs. 1954-58 for Harvey
Harvey - 1st among Defensemen (105% of Red Kelly), 11th among Players (65% of Beliveau)
Bourque - 2nd among Defenseman (85% of Paul Coffey), 15th among all players (75% of Jari Jurri)

At first glance this might appear to be an advantage for Harvey, but this might be an important factor. Harvey was 11th in scoring, but 5 of the top 10 were Montreal Canadien teammates. Bourque was only 15th, but not a single Bruin teammate was in the top 50! Rick Middleton was 51st.

10 Year Peak: 1985-94 for Bourque vs. 1950-59 for Harvey
Harvey - 2nd among Defensemen (85% of Red Kelly), 11th among Players (60% of Ted Lindsay)
Bourque - 2nd among Defensemen (90% of Paul Coffey), 11th among Players (80% of Yzerman and 70% of Lemieux)

This is an edge for Bourque even before you look at the context. Once again, Harvey is 11th, and 5 of his teammates were among the top 10. Bourque was also 11th, and his best Boston teammate was Cam Neely in 47th.




Doug Harvey benefited from playing for an offensive juggernaught. It was Ray Bourque's competition - Paul Coffey - who benefited from being in a similar situation to Harvey.

 

[Dreakmur]

I've always thought they were about equal offensively, with Harvey being better defensively and the better playoff performer (not saying Bourque wasn't great in those areas).

Also, I just can't get past Harvey probably being the most important player on what is generally considered the greatest team of all time. Might not be completely fair to Bourque given the teams he was on, but you have to give Harvey some credit for that.

Ray Bourque is definately a much better offensive player.

Defensively, both were considered among the elite of their time. It's tough to definitively place on ahead of the other.

In the play-offs, they are both good. Don't forget, when looking at Harvey's play-off numbers, that the 1950s is the only time in history where play-off scoring was often higher than reglar season scoring. From the birth of the NHL untill expasion, there have been 8 seasons where play-off scoring went up, and 6 of those 8 seasons were in the 1950s. I think it would be safe bet that it has happened at most a handful of times since expansion, so you're looking at 10-12 times in 100 years. 6 of them happened during Harvey's play-off heyday. That's something major that people often forget to account for.

 

[unknown33]

Slava Fetisov

Is anyone here considering ranking him over Robinson and/or Potvin?
If so why?

 

[Dreakmur]

Is anyone here considering ranking him over Robinson and/or Potvin?
If so why?

Yes, but that discussion shouldn't happen until next round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Popular Misconception

Doug Harvey benefited from playing for an offensive juggernaught. It was Ray Bourque's competition - Paul Coffey - who benefited from being in a similar situation to Harvey.

The portrayal of the Canadiens 1956-60 dynasty as an offensive juggernaught is a popular misconception that is misused when looking at individual player strengths and contributions.

Facts. The Canadiens led the NHL in goals scored from 1955 to 1961.
the Canadiens led the NHL in least goals allowed from 1956 to 1960.They finished 3rd for goals allowed in 1955 and 1961.These were the bookend years when they did not win the SC. They were a defensive juggernaught.

The strength of the team was defensive play which generated offense. Doug Harvey's role has to be viewed in this context. As long as the defense performed to optimum standards the offense would take care of itself. Whether Harvey received the goals or assists mattered not at all.

 

[Kant Think]

I think it would be both interesting and useful to determine peak and prime values if someone could create a top 20 seasons by defensemen all-time. A similar list could be provided for post-season.

Of course, Orr would by default take the first 5 places (and perhaps the first 7) but after that it would really get interesting with Potvin, Bourque, Harvey, Kelly, Shore and Robinson all placing High. Would Lidstrom and Fetisov even place in the top 20 (I doubt it for Lidstrom and I lack knowledge concerning Fetisov).

As for the best non-Orr season, Who had the second best ultimate Peak?

 

[Dreakmur]

The portrayal of the Canadiens 1956-60 dynasty as an offensive juggernaught is a popular misconception that is misused when looking at individual player strengths and contributions.

Facts. The Canadiens led the NHL in goals scored from 1955 to 1961.
the Canadiens led the NHL in least goals allowed from 1956 to 1960.They finished 3rd for goals allowed in 1955 and 1961.These were the bookend years when they did not win the SC. They were a defensive juggernaught.

The strength of the team was defensive play which generated offense. Doug Harvey's role has to be viewed in this context. As long as the defense performed to optimum standards the offense would take care of itself. Whether Harvey received the goals or assists mattered not at all.

I never said they were great offensively at the expense of defense. They were an offensive powerhouse as well as a defensive powerhouse. Harvey's offensive numbers are inflated.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ray Bourque Playoff Offensive Catalyst

Rankings on team in points in seasons with 70+ games:

Bourque: 4, 5, 4, 5, 3, 1, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 6.
Lidstrom: 6, 9, 8, 8, 5, 3, 2, 6, 3, 2, 4, 4, 10, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 2.
Potvin: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 6.

Name|top-1|top-2|top-3|top-4
Bourque|5|10|15|18
Lidstrom|0|3|8|12
Potvin|4|5|8|10

Format: year / regular season / playoff. < below player's norm, > above player's norm.

A snapshot look at two extremes follows. The team being eliminated in the first round followed by the team going to the SC final.

Please recognize that this is a work in progress and as such conclusions will be suggested at the end.

Ray Bourque
Eliminated

1981 / 5 / 9 <
1984 / 3 / 2 <
1985 / 1 / 7 <
1986 / 3 / 11 <
1993 / 3 / 7 <
1995 / 2 / 1 <
1996 / 2 / 2 >
1998 / 3 / <

Finals

1988 / 1 / 2 >
1990 / 2 / 3 > missed 4 games

 

[danincanada]

The portrayal of the Canadiens 1956-60 dynasty as an offensive juggernaught is a popular misconception that is misused when looking at individual player strengths and contributions.

Facts. The Canadiens led the NHL in goals scored from 1955 to 1961.
the Canadiens led the NHL in least goals allowed from 1956 to 1960.They finished 3rd for goals allowed in 1955 and 1961.These were the bookend years when they did not win the SC. They were a defensive juggernaught.

The strength of the team was defensive play which generated offense. Doug Harvey's role has to be viewed in this context. As long as the defense performed to optimum standards the offense would take care of itself. Whether Harvey received the goals or assists mattered not at all.

Bolded - The same applies for the last 4 Championship teams the Red Wings had. Play solid D and the offense would take care of itself. You seem to have contradicted this before with the following post where you focus on Lidstrom, the Red Wings best defensive player, not contributing enough offense for your liking:

The issue is rather simple once we get beyond the rhetoric. How much did a specific defenseman contribute to a SC winning team's offence over a period of 4 or 5 successful SC runs. The provenance and composition of the league or players does not matter.

Data is presented in the following fashion:

Player / Total Points / Total team Goals / Percentage

Lidstrom 56 / 277 / 20.2% 1997,1998,2002,2008.
Harvey 40 / 182 / 21.97% , 1956-60.
Horton 32 / 145 / 22.07%,1962-64, 1967
J. C. Tremblay 52 / 234 / 22.22%, 1965,1966,1968,1969,1971.
D. Potvin 85 / 364 / 23.35%, 1980-83.
L. Robinson 54 / 219 / 24.65%, 1976-1979.

While the claim that Lidstrom's low PIMs allowed him more ice time is interesting, this additional ice time did not translate into a greater offensive contribution. A similar finesse defenseman J.C. Tremblay was more of a contributor, as was Tim Horton a physical presence. Both Horton and Tremblay are not considered as top 10 NHL defensemen All Time.

Somehow the same logic does not apply to Harvey when it's inconvenient to do so.

I find it amusing that you set such difficult standards for Lidstrom time and time again yet only praise Harvey. The two players have extremely similar career paths and accomplishments in my opinion. Only difference being Lidstrom played against the world's best while Harvey's NHL had primarly only fellow Canadians. At this point I realize this has and will continue to be ignored because apparently it is not important.

 

[canucks4ever]

Shore should always be below Bourque. Ray's 1987-1994 seasons would have easily been hart caliber seasons in shore's era. I'll take the guy with superior defense and longevity, over the 'exciting puck rusher' any day.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Consider

I never said they were great offensively at the expense of defense. They were an offensive powerhouse as well as a defensive powerhouse. Harvey's offensive numbers are inflated.

Harvey's stats are deflated if anything. Consider what happens on strong defensive teams and how its is reflected in the actual scoring.

"The Trap" causes turnovers some of which result in goals But very often the key individual player that caused the turnover does not get offensive credit on a resulting goal because he did not touch the puck or was down the chain. Same is true in other defensive systems and situations where proper support from the defensemen is essential.

The truly elite defensemen have the ability to cover 2 opponents at a time especially if the offense is poorly structured or executed. This allows teammates to cheat to the puck creating turnovers and goals but does not generate assists for the defenseman.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Premature Conclussions

Bolded - The same applies for the last 4 Championship teams the Red Wings had. Play solid D and the offense would take care of itself. You seem to have contradicted this before with the following post where you focus on Lidstrom, the Red Wings best defensive player, not contributing enough offense for your liking:



Somehow the same logic does not apply to Harvey when it's inconvenient to do so.

I find it amusing that you set such difficult standards for Lidstrom time and time again yet only praise Harvey. The two players have extremely similar career paths and accomplishments in my opinion. Only difference being Lidstrom played against the world's best while Harvey's NHL had primarly only fellow Canadians. At this point I realize this has and will continue to be ignored because apparently it is not important.

Premature conclusions adapted to your point of view. Raw numbers showing a proportionally different contributions when winning.