Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Defensemen)

[Canadiens1958]

Playing Against the Best in the World.

The playing against the best in the world argument slanted towards modern players is a popular mantra. Sadly it is not supported by actual numbers and facts.

Since Alexander Ovechkin entered the NHL how many times has he actually played in an NHL game against Nicklas Lidstrom? Perhaps 20 times?

Now let's look at the O6 era. In certain seasons including playoffs Gordie Howe played 21 NHL games against Doug Harvey. During their NHL careers Howe faced Harvey well over 200 times. Could the proponents of the best in the world position step-up and provide a list of non-Canadians who were better than Gordie Howe?

Conversely Doug Harvey played a game against the Olympic Champion Soviet National team in 1964. Makeshift Junior Canadiens team, never practiced together. Harvey, days short of 40, with 5 AHL teammates and 2/3 of a young Junior Canadiens team, lost 3-2. Harvey was by far the best player on the ice, playing app 50 minutes. Scotty Bowman coached.

Reality is that today the best in the world rarely play the best in the world. Years ago the opposite was true.

 

[Dreakmur]

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.

Playing for the best offensive team in the league, with 5 of the top 10 scorers, deflated his stats?

On a team with forwards who cheat offensively, the offense often runs through the defensemen who created the turnover.

 

[Pear Juice]

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.

Well, that was sort of the point I was trying to make. I don't want it to be an issue that Bourque didn't win anything at all until his 41-year party at Colorado. But I do have this odd feeling about it. Can the second best player at a position be someone who never won anything of significance with his day-to-day team? I do think he can in this case, but it sure feels a bit weird.

Is Eddie Shore proven to be terrible in the playoffs? That's something that I haven't heard of and would drastically change my opinion of him. Please do elaborate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Provide a List

Playing for the best offensive team in the league, with 5 of the top 10 scorers, deflated his stats?

On a team with forwards who cheat offensively, the offense often runs through the defensemen who created the turnover.

Provide a list of the 1956-60 Canadiens forwards who cheated offensively.

 

[canucks4ever]

Well, that was sort of the point I was trying to make. I don't want it to be an issue that Bourque didn't win anything at all until his 41-year party at Colorado. But I do have this odd feeling about it. Can the second best player at a position be someone who never won anything of significance with his day-to-day team? I do think he can in this case, but it sure feels a bit weird.

Is Eddie Shore proven to be terrible in the playoffs? That's something that I haven't heard of and would drastically change my opinion of him. Please do elaborate.

Well doesnt it bother you that in Doug Harvey's second season with the Rangers, his game dropped so bad that he was in the minor leagues the next season. I guess its alot easier to look great when your a hab. Bourque did more with less.

 

[canucks4ever]

The playing against the best in the world argument slanted towards modern players is a popular mantra. Sadly it is not supported by actual numbers and facts.

Since Alexander Ovechkin entered the NHL how many times has he actually played in an NHL game against Nicklas Lidstrom? Perhaps 20 times?

Now let's look at the O6 era. In certain seasons including playoffs Gordie Howe played 21 NHL games against Doug Harvey. During their NHL careers Howe faced Harvey well over 200 times. Could the proponents of the best in the world position step-up and provide a list of non-Canadians who were better than Gordie Howe?

Conversely Doug Harvey played a game against the Olympic Champion Soviet National team in 1964. Makeshift Junior Canadiens team, never practiced together. Harvey, days short of 40, with 5 AHL teammates and 2/3 of a young Junior Canadiens team, lost 3-2. Harvey was by far the best player on the ice, playing app 50 minutes. Scotty Bowman coached.

Reality is that today the best in the world rarely play the best in the world. Years ago the opposite was true.

They play against the best, but they also get to play with the best at all times, its easier to look great when you arent the only weapon on a team.

 

[Dreakmur]

Is Eddie Shore proven to be terrible in the playoffs? That's something that I haven't heard of and would drastically change my opinion of him. Please do elaborate.

Terrible? Not at all.

While he wasn't as dominant as the regular season, Shore was still one of the best scorers among defensemen in the play-offs.

 

[Dreakmur]

Provide a list of the 1956-60 Canadiens forwards who cheated offensively.

That was part of "firewagon hockey" wasn't it? The forwards were out high, which helped create quicker counter-attacks.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Well doesnt it bother you that in Doug Harvey's second season with the Rangers, his game dropped so bad that he was in the minor leagues the next season. I guess its alot easier to look great when your a hab. Bourque did more with less.

I'm assuming that you're referring to Harvey's third season in New York? In his second season with the Rangers at age 38 he actually provided more offence (39 points) than he did in his first season on Broadway the year before when he won the Norris Trophy.

 

[canucks4ever]

I'm assuming that you're referring to Harvey's third season in New York? In his second season with the Rangers at age 38 he actually provided more offence (39 points) than he did in his first season on Broadway the year before when he won the Norris Trophy.

Yeah but thats the season where he supposedly broke down defensively and was nowhere near the force he once was in Montreal. He wasnt even a 2nd team all star that year.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That was part of "firewagon hockey" wasn't it? The forwards were out high, which helped create quicker counter-attacks.

I'm sure I've seen quotes that one of the main reasons the Canadiens were able to "cheat" a bit was because they could rely on Harvey so much.

I think that running through him and relying on him so much is a point in his favour not something to hold against him because his presence allowed a team to play a certain way. That just makes him all the more game changing.

 

[Pear Juice]

Well doesnt it bother you that in Doug Harvey's second season with the Rangers, his game dropped so bad that he was in the minor leagues the next season. I guess its alot easier to look great when your a hab. Bourque did more with less.

you're reading too much into this, but in a sense, you're exactly right. It is much easier to look great when you played for the 50s habs. That's exactly the issue I have with Ray Bourque. I know that it's insensible to judge him by his lack of team accomplishments, because I know the reason is that his team was not an absolute powerhouse, like those of most other all-time greats. But I can't get over the fact that it is disturbing.

The 80s Bruins were not a dominant team, but they were not at horrible either. Between 1980 and 1997 (Bourque's all-star years) they made the playoffs every year during the 80s and made the finals twice.

The fact that Harvey had some down years by the tail end of his career is nowhere near as disturbing as the fact that Bourque won nothing while being arguably the best defenseman in the league for nearly 20 years.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Firewagon Hockey

That was part of "firewagon hockey" wasn't it? The forwards were out high, which helped create quicker counter-attacks.

Believe you are referring to the book. Literary licence is not proof of anything. From memory, either the dust jacket or inside you wil find photos of all five Canadiens players in action around their goalie.

Quicker counter-attacks are just as easy to create from down low with proper defensive and body positioning. Even the ABCs of traditional pre expansion Leaf hockey recognized this.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm sure I've seen quotes that one of the main reasons the Canadiens were able to "cheat" a bit was because they could rely on Harvey so much.

I think that running through him and relying on him so much is a point in his favour not something to hold against him because his presence allowed a team to play a certain way. That just makes him all the more game changing.

Not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying people need to account for team situations. Harvey had a significant advantage over Bourque there.

As I've said before, passing the puck to Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau is going to lead to substantially more assists than passing to Cam Neely and Rick Middleton. Harvey and Bourque can make the same passes 100 teams each, but Harvey walks away with a large edge in assists, just because his fowards were far superior.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey in New York.

I'm assuming that you're referring to Harvey's third season in New York? In his second season with the Rangers at age 38 he actually provided more offence (39 points) than he did in his first season on Broadway the year before when he won the Norris Trophy.

Short Version. 1961 Harvey was traded to the Rangers so that he could assume the role of player - coach. Played well and coached the Rangers to a surprise playoff spot ahead of Detroit.

1962-63 season was relieved of coaching. Muzz Patrick coached. Midseason Red Sullivan replaced Patrick. Big problem. As a player Sullivan had a rep as a "slew footer", etc. Harvey addressed the situation resulting in emergency hospitalization for Sullivan.Room was split into factions Harvey/Sullivan. Harvey's stats show that he did not quit on the team or the coaches but the team missed the playoffs.

Room remained split into 1963-64. Someone had to go - Harvey. Later in 1963-64 Rangers saw that inspite of the Plante trade in the summer of 1963 more housecleaning or rebuilding was in order.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Abstract

Not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying people need to account for team situations. Harvey had a significant advantage over Bourque there.

As I've said before, passing the puck to Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau is going to lead to substantially more assists than passing to Cam Neely and Rick Middleton. Harvey and Bourque can make the same passes 100 teams each, but Harvey walks away with a large edge in assists, just because his fowards were far superior.

Abstract that does not reflect the way the game was played. Based on the flawed assumptions that:

1.) the puck entered the Canadiens' defensive zone as often as the puck entered the Bruins defensive zone.
2.) PPs were identical in the way they were run when in fact they were completely different. Canadiens ran a wide PP. LHS Harvey switching to the left point. RHS Geoffrion taking the right point. Bruins ran a narrow PP. LHS Bourque on the right point stick to the inside prime shooting passing position.
3.) Forechecking and offensive schemes and strategies were the same for both teams. They were not.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Not saying he wasn't great. I'm saying people need to account for team situations. Harvey had a significant advantage over Bourque there.

As I've said before, passing the puck to Maurice Richard and Jean Beliveau is going to lead to substantially more assists than passing to Cam Neely and Rick Middleton. Harvey and Bourque can make the same passes 100 teams each, but Harvey walks away with a large edge in assists, just because his fowards were far superior.

Maybe that is true.. and maybe Bourque scored more goals for the Bruins than he would have in Harvey's place too because he was relied upon more to do so in the absence of a Maurice Richard.. who knows?

I agree that it is important to keep in mind the team and linemates as context but the issue is always where do you draw that line between individual and team? Very hard to say with any certainty.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

Honestly, all this shows me is that Bourque had more longevity than Harvey... which is something we already knew.

I still think Harvey was a bit better defensively than Bourque, a bit better at controlling the play, and somewhat better in the playoffs.

Well doesnt it bother you that in Doug Harvey's second season with the Rangers, his game dropped so bad that he was in the minor leagues the next season. I guess its alot easier to look great when your a hab. Bourque did more with less.

Doug Harvey's won his final Norris at the age of 37 and was 2nd in Hart voting.... in his first year with the Rangers!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That was part of "firewagon hockey" wasn't it? The forwards were out high, which helped create quicker counter-attacks.

And Doug Harvey is credited with being the reason the Habs could play that way. Shouldn't that help his case, not hurt it?

From Canadiens Captains by Michael Ulmer:

When, inevitably, Harvey got hold of the puck, opponents feared his passing touch and peeled back. The Canadiens' forwards, secure in the knowledge that Harvey would be beaten very rarely, were afforded the luxury of hanging higher in the defensive zone or even lurking in neutral ice. Harvey's natural skills bought him more room and, unimpeded by forecheckers (Harvey woul quickly lose anyone who challenged him), he was free to bring the puck up ice. "He was like a big glider moving with the puck," remembered television analyst Howie Meeker, a veteran of the Harvey era. "He controlled the play so well, his forwards could cheat."

 

[Mancini0518]

Well, that was sort of the point I was trying to make. I don't want it to be an issue that Bourque didn't win anything at all until his 41-year party at Colorado. But I do have this odd feeling about it. Can the second best player at a position be someone who never won anything of significance with his day-to-day team? I do think he can in this case, but it sure feels a bit weird.

Is Eddie Shore proven to be terrible in the playoffs? That's something that I haven't heard of and would drastically change my opinion of him. Please do elaborate.

He wasn't terrible but as posters have gone over earlier in this thread he certainly didn't raise his game in the playoff and hurt his team badly by taking penalties.

He averaged 3.25 penalty minutes per game in his playoff career and had 40 in 8 games in 1926. Couple that with his ppg going from .51 in the regular season to .36 in the playoffs its clear that he was not a good playoff performer.

 

[Canadiens1958]

While Coaching the Team

Doug Harvey's won his final Norris at the age of 37 and was 2nd in Hart voting.... in his first year with the Rangers!

While coaching the team. Would have been a candidate for coach of the year if the award existed in 1962.

 

[jkrx]

And Doug Harvey is credited with being the reason the Habs could play that way. Shouldn't that help his case, not hurt it?

From Canadiens Captains by Michael Ulmer:

You would think so.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

That's where I have him. People can argue about team accomplishments all day, the bottom line is Bourque is the only player in question who wasn't on a dynasty-type team at any point.

The fact is, Bourque was the clear-cut best defenseman in an era which contained numerous top-10 all time great players. He got there immediately upon entering the league and stayed there almost every single season until he retired after an exceptionally long and prolific career. There is hardly a blemish on his record, no period where you can question whether he was really all he was cracked up to be.

I think it's tight between him and Harvey, and sometimes I go back and forth. But when you add it all up, take the sum total of their careers and put it in context of the era and team circumstances, to me Bourque nudges Harvey by the slimmest margin.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's where I have him. People can argue about team accomplishments all day, the bottom line is Bourque is the only player in question who wasn't on a dynasty-type team at any point.

The fact is, Bourque was the clear-cut best defenseman in an era which contained numerous top-10 all time great players. He got there immediately upon entering the league and stayed there almost every single season until he retired after an exceptionally long and prolific career. There is hardly a blemish on his record, no period where you can question whether he was really all he was cracked up to be.

I think it's tight between him and Harvey, and sometimes I go back and forth. But when you add it all up, take the sum total of their careers and put it in context of the era and team circumstances, to me Bourque nudges Harvey by the slimmest margin.

If Bourque were the clear-cut best defenseman of the era almost every season, wouldn't he have had more than 5 Norris Trophies?

As for your second point, some might consider the fact that Bourque was only a career +5 in the playoffs (-8 in Boston) as a small blemish.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If Bourque were the clear-cut best defenseman of the era almost every season, wouldn't he have had more than 5 Norris Trophies?

As for your second point, some might consider the fact that Bourque was only a career +5 in the playoffs (-8 in Boston) as a small blemish.

I agree.

Having watched Bourque's entire career and he being my favorite player to watch for so long, I still don't think he was the clear-cut best year after year. There was always an argument for someone else, depending on the season.

It seems that Harvey, though, was just that. Clear cut.

And Shore perhaps the best player period for part of his career.