Who would still be a star?

[danincanada]

I was posting from my phone and it kept auto-correcting his name.

With the amount you post criticizing Lidstrom you should probably add the correct spelling into the autocorrect on your phone, if your phone is capable of that.

Again, it was a different time and as I listed, there were many, many reasons why Dman weren't able to contribute offensively as easily as they can today. I listed the main ones but you of course just ignored them completely with zero response.

It was generally easier for defenseman to jump into the play offensively in the 80's too because the games weren't as tight but many here claim the DPE simply lacked offensively talented defenseman. It's a double standard.

You claimed Harvey controlled the play better than back peddled and claimed he did it better in his own zone and the neutral zone. What did I ignore? I will continue to pose the question why this greater puck control didn't lead to more points and assists for Harvey, whether raw or adjusted. It doesn't seem like this claim of yours lead directly to offensive results.

So once again Bourque's offense should be downgraded because he played in a higher scoring environment but of course we could never do the same to Lidstrom's defense for playing in a lower scoring environment right?

That's not what I meant. Bourque played most of his prime in a more offensive era so his raw stats are obviously superior to Lidstrom's but his adjusted stats are still higher so I have to concede his offensive game was better. Lidstrom played in a more offensive era than Harvey so his stats are obviously superior to Harvey's but his adjusted stats are still higher so you have to concede his offensive game was better. I'm being consistent but you refuse to be.

Not a chance, especially when I list 6 different reasons/examples of Harvey's superiority, you pick on one of them in the most literal and myopic sense possible, completely ignore the other five and then claim victory heh.

You still continue to ignore the FACT that Harvey's legacy lives on in every single Dman playing the game to this day, every minute of every game.
Very few have ever attained the same level of control Harvey had on a game but EVERY SINGLE DMAN TODAY plays his positional game.

This is overblown and irrelevant and reeks of desperation. You even mentioned how most players couldn't take a slap shot back then so there was lots of room for the sport to evolve. A word of advice though, stock with this argument because your others have fallen apart.

Of course they did but they didn't resemble the PP's of today what so ever and Dmen were secondary parts of it, not primary like today.

No comment on the PP statistics Iain Fyffe posted? Heh

Both players produced about half their points on the PP and I've already posted their adjusted stats. Your argument simply isn't working and your inconsistency overall is as clear as the blue sky we have today.

 

[Big Phil]

No, adding 10 teams won't but adding new streams and increasing the talent pool should. You already agreed to this a few times you know. Why would it only be run of the mill guys being produced? It just doesn't make any sense to think that way.

Except that is the way it is. There aren't more star defenseman today than there were 30 years ago. You'd think there would be, but there hasn't been. As I told you, things go in cycles, for a while there was a clear lull in the amount of elite defenseman in the NHL. Which is why Desjardins and Hatcher were getting AS nods.

We don't know how many Norris' Harvey would win in another era. That's kind of my point. You don't question it, you are practically saying it's a fact that he would be superior to current players. It's a big question mark actually. If your eye test is that great then you should get paid big money to be an NHL scout or manager.

So then why don't we compare him to the time he actually played? You know, the 1950s/1960s was at one time the modern game. It would be like downgrading Sidney Crosby 50 years from now because he played in an NHL that didn't travel over to Europe for their games (I hope this never happens by the way). The easy answer is if you watched Harvey and watched Lidstrom as a scout you'd have picked Lidstrom.

Lidstrom won the Norris and Conn Smythe in '02. That's a pretty great year of hockey to me. You're focused so much on the regular season but the playoffs is what really matters to NHL players and most fans.

Whether or not Lidstrom should have won it in 2002 is immaterial. I'd have picked Yzerman, but alas, Lidstrom did have a nice run. That being said, Bourque himself was a wonderful playoff performer. As I said, sometimes he was THE offensive load on the Bruins as well as their best defenseman. Bourque led the NHL in shots three times. He holds the all-time record for shots on goal. He carried the play and controlled the play at a larger degree than Lidstrom. He just did, there isn't any getting away from this. Lidstrom in 2002 might be the best he's ever been and no one would take him over Bourque in 1990. Not one. Lastly, even the Hart trophy voting is just too big of a gap to put Lidstrom even with Bourque.

Bourque - 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
Lidstrom - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 17, 19
Harvey - 2, 3, 5, 5, 5

You can't see a difference with Bourque and Lidstrom? 19 all-star nods to 12? The longevity trumps Lidstrom, the amount of elite seasons, the caliber of elite seasons. This is also in an era where Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux would be given the Hart. Doesn't it look like at their peak the writers felt Harvey and Bourque were more valuable?

Okay, because I've looked at their numbers compared to their era and Harvey and Lidstrom look very similar to me, both with a similar split of PP/ES points

If any player could be magically time travel forward and still excel, it would be Harvey. In video, he looks like a modern star defenseman playing against players who were using mostly archaic tactics.

Yeah, I've been trying to say this for a while, to no avail. He stood out on a team full of superstars.

 

[Rhiessan71]

With the amount you post criticizing Lidstrom you should probably add the correct spelling into the autocorrect on your phone, if your phone is capable of that.

Like it matters

It was generally easier for defenseman to jump into the play offensively in the 80's too because the games weren't as tight but many here claim the DPE simply lacked offensively talented defenseman. It's a double standard.

Actually...the claim or theory #1 of Lidstrom's lower points than previous Dmen has been that with how the game is played today that even strength points are much harder to come by than previously, that Lidstrom produced at as high a level as was possible.
The response to this was that that could be right or the other possibility is theory #2, that Lidstrom and his peers simply weren't as good offensively, especially at ES as previous Dmen and until a Dman came along to prove that, both sides WERE at a stalemate.
I say WERE because lo and behold along comes Mr. Karlsson scoring ES points like the "old days" and doing so with half the talent that Lidstrom played with to boot.
Theory #1 has been laid to rest, bye bye.

You claimed Harvey controlled the play better than back peddled and claimed he did it better in his own zone and the neutral zone. What did I ignore? I will continue to pose the question why this greater puck control didn't lead to more points and assists for Harvey, whether raw or adjusted. It doesn't seem like this claim of yours lead directly to offensive results.

I CLAIMED that Harvey handled the puck much more and much more effectively than Lidstrom did and every single piece of film and eye witness account backs this up in spades.
The part you're not grasping is that Dmen were not playing the same role as they do today. They were rarely passed back to at the point (that was moving backwards and considered too risky) and pinching was severely frowned upon.
Watch film of Harvey, the majority of the time that he gets the puck at the blueline was due to the opposing team trying to clear it.

Seriously though, all you have to do is watch an hour of film of Harvey and an hour of film of Lidstrom and this all becomes extremely clear.

But no, all you have to respond with is Adjusted Stats...the strength of that argument leaves me quivering

That's not what I meant. Bourque played most of his prime in a more offensive era so his raw stats are obviously superior to Lidstrom's but his adjusted stats are still higher so I have to concede his offensive game was better. Lidstrom played in a more offensive era than Harvey so his stats are obviously superior to Harvey's but his adjusted stats are still higher so you have to concede his offensive game was better. I'm being consistent but you refuse to be.

Again with the Adjusted Stats. AS's when used as literally as you're using them are so flawed when dealing with outliers and the top less than 1% it's not even funny and they are your basis for everything heh.

Just the fact that you have to actually check with Adjusted Stats to tell you that Bourque was indeed better offensively says it all right there.
Again, watch an hour of Bourque and then an hour of Lidstrom and it becomes extremely clear, extremely quickly heh.
It's like watching Karlsson and Weber, the gap is more like a valley.

This is overblown and irrelevant and reeks of desperation. You even mentioned how most players couldn't take a slap shot back then so there was lots of room for the sport to evolve. A word of advice though, stock with this argument because your others have fallen apart.

Desperation implies that it's a last ditch effort to overcome a hurdle. First off and most obviously, an argument which is mostly built off Adjusted Stats for its base aint no hurdle.
And second, there is nothing "last ditch" about it. It's has been stated right from the beginning. I didn't JUST come up with it now.
Harvey's changing of the way defenders defend and his ability to control a game has been talked about and he has been revered for it for ohhhh like over 50 years now heh.

No comment on the PP statistics Iain Fyffe posted? Heh

Both players produced about half their points on the PP and I've already posted their adjusted stats. Your argument simply isn't working and your inconsistency overall is as clear as the blue sky we have today.

C'mon, in Lidstrom's prime he was scoring on the PP to ES at about a 5-3 rate or 60%, the exact opposite as Bourque and Harvey.
When Harvey and Bourque started declining, it was their ES production that dropped more acutely than their PP production.
Lidstrom's ES production didn't drop off as acutely because it wasn't very high in the first place but his PP production dropped off much more severely than Harvey's or Bourque's did.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The Stanley Cup is often said to be the most difficult trophy in sports to win. The NHL's format is not the only way, nor perfect, but personally I like it the best. Would you prefer another method of determining the Stanley Cup champion?

Sure, why not do it like they do in European football? The team with the best regular-season record is the champion. Ideally this would entail a perfectly-balanced schedule of course. This was good enough for the first the first quarter-century of Stanley Cup play, where playoffs were only needed when there was a tie at the top of the league, or if the Cup was to be played between teams from different leagues.

To perform your best at the most crucial and intense time and outcompete the other team/player with your hockey skills.

Which, of course, is easier to do when you know you only have a few more games to play. No need to pace yourself, no need to be concerned with playing against a variety of styles and tactics, you can plan your game against this one team only, focus only on them.

This is why I tend to say that yes, the playoffs are different, but so what? Different does not mean better, or more valid, or anything of the sort. Why is a sprint better than a marathon?

 

[Hardyvan123]

the strategy of the canucks, when they were unbeatable in the second half of the '10 season, and through the '11 season: long shifts, playing possum, wear the other team out over the course of entire shifts in the offensive zone, and over the course of games. maintain possession at all costs; only shoot when it's too good of a shot to pass up. usually tight games, even sometimes trailing up to the second intermission, then about mid-way through the third they'd start to run away with the game.

I never saw this on any regular basis and overall for the team.

sure some guys take longer shifts once in a while but lots of bottom 6 guys also take shorts shifts for every team in the league.

the game play and speed of the game has definitely changed over time and it's always gotten faster and quicker paced.

along with that there is simply less time and space on the ice than there was as little as 30 years ago.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No, it's the European Red Wings, most notably Lidstrom. Lidstrom has to meet higher standards than anyone around here. It's scary how similar Harvey's career and playing style was but I've never heard of him being criticised the same way.

It is very ironic for 2 elite all time great Dmen and how similar their careers are that one guy gets the lions share of criticism and the other gets almost a free pass on his greatness.

that's probably the biggest inconsistency in this thread in that it's taken as a given that the 06 era is elite and that everyone was great...... and that somehow with even more talent streams and way better overall coaching in the minor ranks coming up worldwide and somehow the talent level today is inferior tot hat of the past?

neither claim can be "proven" but one surely can be backed up by a lot of evidence other than hearsay and just simply restaiting old adages.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It is very ironic for 2 elite all time great Dmen and how similar their careers are that one guy gets the lions share of criticism and the other gets almost a free pass on his greatness.

that's probably the biggest inconsistency in this thread in that it's taken as a given that the 06 era is elite and that everyone was great...... and that somehow with even more talent streams and way better overall coaching in the minor ranks coming up worldwide and somehow the talent level today is inferior tot hat of the past?

neither claim can be "proven" but one surely can be backed up by a lot of evidence other than hearsay and just simply restaiting old adages.

Yeah...because ranking them #2 and #4 is such an insult.
Please, by all means explain to me how being ranked #4 ALL-TIME is doing Lidstrom some great injustice.
Gimme a break!

This thread is supposed to be about who would be a star today. Harvey is named as a sure candidate and then it's gotta be all about Lidstrom

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah...because ranking them #2 and #4 is such an insult.
Please, by all means explain to me how being ranked #4 ALL-TIME is doing Lidstrom some great injustice.
Gimme a break!

This thread is supposed to be about who would be a star today. Harvey is named as a sure candidate and then it's gotta be all about Lidstrom

well since this is my first actual post on said player, unless i'm mistaken then the eye rolling should be directed in the mirror one would think?

That being said, sure Harvey would be a star today but would he be any better than Doughty (his most direct comparable as much as i hate comps)?

As good as Doughty is, and has been so far in his career, the sheer number of elite type of Dmen in the league makes it that he doesn't even have a Norris yet.
just look at last years voting and how many of those Dmen came from typical 06 talent feeder systems for the NHL, not to even mention the lack of minorities, ie blacks in the 06 NHL.

a guy like doughty will face the rest of his career up against many elite non Canadian Dmen for the Norris and 2 guys in Subban and Seth Jones (yes the guy who won the ebst Dman award at the world championships and will be a norris contender in a year or 2) who weren't even remotely possible in the 06 NHL of Harvey in the 50's and 60's.

 

[Killion]

That being said, sure Harvey would be a star today but would he be any better than Doughty (his most direct comparable as much as i hate comps)?

I dont think thats a fair comparison Hv. It isnt fair to Drew Doughty. Theres no way he could live up to Doug Harvey, hasnt to date & wont. Passport, place of origin irrelevant. Your talking about a player who won 7 Norris Trophies, 11X All Star. Recognized as one of the Greatest Defencemen & Hockey Players of All Time. Drew Doughty? Love the guy but no.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I dont think thats a fair comparison Hv.

If you had left it at this you would have been right.

It isnt fair to Drew Doughty. Theres no way he could live up to Doug Harvey, hasnt to date & wont. Passport, place of origin irrelevant. Your talking about a player who won 7 Norris Trophies, 11X All Star. Recognized as one of the Greatest Defencemen & Hockey Players of All Time. Drew Doughty? Love the guy but no.

sure but maybe it says something of the weakness of competition that Harvey ahd for his 7 Norris trophies eh?

Also to be fair to Doughty he is way ahead of Harvey at the same stages of their careers and ages as well, it wasn't a fair comp in that way.

The comp(and I hate comps) is in their size and the way both guys can impose their will on the ice at times.

It's pretty clear that one guy faced much better competition both in terms of other Dmen for the Norris and in actual game play than the other one did.

enjoy a glass of your favorite beverage and give it some serious thought before responding as I did cheers

 

[Rhiessan71]

If you had left it at this you would have been right.



sure but maybe it says something of the weakness of competition that Harvey ahd for his 7 Norris trophies eh?

Also to be fair to Doughty he is way ahead of Harvey at the same stages of their careers and ages as well, it wasn't a fair comp in that way.

The comp(and I hate comps) is in their size and the way both guys can impose their will on the ice at times.

It's pretty clear that one guy faced much better competition both in terms of other Dmen for the Norris and in actual game play than the other one did.

enjoy a glass of your favorite beverage and give it some serious thought before responding as I did cheers

Oh? Doughty is facing the equivalent of Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull 28 times a season?
That's news to me.

How about weighing in all the factors for a change.

 

[danincanada]

Yeah...because ranking them #2 and #4 is such an insult.
Please, by all means explain to me how being ranked #4 ALL-TIME is doing Lidstrom some great injustice.
Gimme a break!

It would be difficult for you to claim Lidstrom wasn't top 5 all-time. Agreeing to that gives you credibility and you can deny you're a hater but then you criticize him at every turn but I've never seen the same for Harvey or Bourque, who had their flaws too. Actions speak louder than words in this case.

This thread is supposed to be about who would be a star today. Harvey is named as a sure candidate and then it's gotta be all about Lidstrom

Harvey was never named as a sure candidate for not being a star today. I merely questioned if him, and stars from his time, would still hold the same elite position. It actually started with Tim Horton if you read back. I don't know how it turned into another Harvey, Lidstrom, Bourque discussion.

 

[danincanada]

Except that is the way it is. There aren't more star defenseman today than there were 30 years ago. You'd think there would be, but there hasn't been. As I told you, things go in cycles, for a while there was a clear lull in the amount of elite defenseman in the NHL. Which is why Desjardins and Hatcher were getting AS nods.

First of all, why are you focusing on 30 years? How about 60 years?

Secondly, if there were more "star" level defenseman now, how would we know? They couldn't all share the Norris each season and there are only 4 AS positions. Guys playing now who could be true "stars" back in the 50's might have to take a backseat currently and might not get any real accolades. That's what I see as possibly and probably happening.

You agreed earlier but it appears you've gone back to disagreeing on the changes in the talent pool because it put your whole argument in a bind.

So then why don't we compare him to the time he actually played? You know, the 1950s/1960s was at one time the modern game. It would be like downgrading Sidney Crosby 50 years from now because he played in an NHL that didn't travel over to Europe for their games (I hope this never happens by the way). The easy answer is if you watched Harvey and watched Lidstrom as a scout you'd have picked Lidstrom.

You aren't just comparing him with the time he played in though, you're taking what he did then and comparing it with now.

How does your Crosby example relate with what we're discussing here? A better example would be if China went gung-ho for hockey over the next 50 years. They invested a lot of money into the sport with facilities and advanced development programs, and it became extremely popular, catching up with the current hockey powers very quickly. Inevitably, we see new streams of NHL players from China with elite players, star players, and grinders. Doesn't that make it harder on everyone else to be elite and separate themselves? Some Chinese players would displace North Americans and Europeans in the league and for accolades. Are we really going to stick to the same standards when comparing across eras when we know there are more and deeper streams of talent? Sorry for sounding like a broken record but you really need to admit this, acknowledge it, then apply it. Otherwise disagree and make a rebuttal as to why this doesn't make sense.

Whether or not Lidstrom should have won it in 2002 is immaterial. I'd have picked Yzerman, but alas, Lidstrom did have a nice run. That being said, Bourque himself was a wonderful playoff performer. As I said, sometimes he was THE offensive load on the Bruins as well as their best defenseman. Bourque led the NHL in shots three times. He holds the all-time record for shots on goal. He carried the play and controlled the play at a larger degree than Lidstrom. He just did, there isn't any getting away from this. Lidstrom in 2002 might be the best he's ever been and no one would take him over Bourque in 1990. Not one. Lastly, even the Hart trophy voting is just too big of a gap to put Lidstrom even with Bourque.

I would take Lidstrom. He was better defensively and had a brilliance to his game that only he had, and fit like a glove on that Cup winning Wings team. Since you have polled every other person on earth about this though it means I'm all alone I guess. Bowman seemed to like Lidstrom a lot immediately after that '02 run, too:

"(Lidstrom) is just about the perfect player on the ice, very few mistakes," Detroit coach Scotty Bowman said. "And he scored some big goals for us."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/cup02/2002-06-14-usat-cupline.htm

Bourque - 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
Lidstrom - 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17, 17, 19
Harvey - 2, 3, 5, 5, 5

The Hart is awarded to the player judged to be "most valuable to his team", which leads to a lot of confusion about the award. Bourque didn't have the star power around him that Lidstrom had. This hurt Lidstrom's chance of getting votes. Kind of like how Bourque didn't get a single vote in '93 when his teammate Oates finished 4th.

Now, for the last time. Imagine the current NHL. Now remove all the Americans and Europeans. That's a lot of star power and Hart (insert any trophy or accolade here) nominees, isn't it? Now find a random way to cut the Canadian players in half, or by 1/3 if you wish, and remove that portion. Is it harder or easier for the top remaining players to win the Hart or be nominated? The answer is that it's easier, of course. Now add that context to Harvey's Hart and AS record. Or at least try or acknowledge it instead of pretending he faced the same amount of talent and humanity as more current players.

You can't see a difference with Bourque and Lidstrom? 19 all-star nods to 12? The longevity trumps Lidstrom, the amount of elite seasons, the caliber of elite seasons. This is also in an era where Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux would be given the Hart. Doesn't it look like at their peak the writers felt Harvey and Bourque were more valuable?

You focus on Bourque's 19 AS nominations to Lidstrom's 12 but Harvey only had 11. Hmmm... Is this important or not because apparently you've ranked Harvey over both.

Yeah, I've been trying to say this for a while, to no avail. He stood out on a team full of superstars.

So did Lidstrom in '02 and his other teams had lots of HOFers as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Oh? Doughty is facing the equivalent of Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull 28 times a season?
That's news to me.

How about weighing in all the factors for a change.

sure there is Howe for all of Harveys career but Hull isn't a force until the 59-60 season and Harvey has some decent supporting line mates as well doesn't he?

It's not like the rest of the league was super competitive every year either with those Habs teams or that Howe was in Wayne Gretzky mode for all of his career.

speaking of Howe, his 4 season super peak was all before Harvey ever won a Norris.

and while we are at it, Harvey only had Kelly as a serious competitor for Norris for a couple of overlapping years.

How about actually weighing in all the factors instead of cherry picking a player here or there?

 

[Sens Rule]

sure there is Howe for all of Harveys career but Hull isn't a force until the 59-60 season and Harvey has some decent supporting line mates as well doesn't he?

It's not like the rest of the league was super competitive every year either with those Habs teams or that Howe was in Wayne Gretzky mode for all of his career.

speaking of Howe, his 4 season super peak was all before Harvey ever won a Norris.

and while we are at it, Harvey only had Kelly as a serious competitor for Norris for a couple of overlapping years.

How about actually weighing in all the factors instead of cherry picking a player here or there?

How about the Norris did not exist until 53/54 and Harvey was a top defenceman during Howe's full 4 year peak and a first team all-star the last 3 years of that peak.

Might want to know some history before you call people out on not knowing it.

Seems that is all this thread is. People wanting to ignore history.

Virtually ALL the superstars post WW2 era were playing the same game on the ice. Equipment changed and styles changed but after the intro of the red line and having rosters of at least 3 lines and 2 and half D pairs... the game is very much the same. Virtually ALL the superstars were great from their teens until their early 30's, mid 30's or in some cases about 40. LIKE almost ALL of the inner circle HHOF players. Virtually ALL of them. Regardless of whether their careers began in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's or 80's.

Shift to 4 lines, to composite sticks, to lighter goalie equipment, to expansion from 6 to 12 to 30 teams. From getting paid so little they had summer jobs to being jillionaires. From going to training camp 20 lbs overweight to get in shape to training 12 months a year with the best science and supplements and nutrition available.... Through low scoring defensive hockey, to high flying laissez faire hockey to the DPE to the Salary Cap... ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TOP HHOFer has a decade or even 2 decades of consecutive high level superstar performance. And for the players that tail off later in their career it usually is due to injuries not due to them being unable to adapt to a somewhat different style of game. This is SO CLEAR by the evidence that it is almost impossible to argue against it. There are changes to the game and the average player now is more fit and faster and larger then in the past. That is irrelevant when considering who would still be stars today. Jean Beliveau or Ray Bourque are going to be among the top players in any era, as would Crosby or Lindros or Lidstrom. Who is "better" is kind of irrelevant. Whether Bossy or Hull score more goals in a certain era is a fun debate... but it is a lock that they are among the top 3 or top 5 or maybe leading the NHL in any year they stay healthy in their prime... same with Stamkos or Ovechkin. How many people could think otherwise boggles my mind. It is like they think the world began in 1990 or something. Think Jaques Plante isn't going to play better with equipment that doesn't endanger his life every shot he faces? He invented the freaking modern goalie mask. Think Dominik Hasek isn't going to adapt and not make saves with his helmet on purpose if he is playing maskless in 1955? Look at Roy coming up as a rookie with heavy pads and a Ken Dryden style mask and he wins the Cup.... fast forward 15 years or so and he is winning a Cup with virtually the same equipment as today and is maybe 1/3rd larger with equipment that weighs half as much... still the best playoff and big game goalie ever.

One could make the argument some semi-stars of different eras would not be successful in a different era when the focus was on a two way game and defence over offence.... but take Rob Brown. The guy would score in any era, very talented. But even in the hoghest scoring time, on a team that had Mario and was all about offence first... he still could not stay in the NHL after posting amazing numbers... because he did not have an all-around game. He fails in the era most suited to him in the best possible situation, because he was not a star. He could have had a few good to great offensive seasons in the mid 70's on an expension team that didn't win much.. or the WHA, but eventually he ends up not in the NHL and that is gonna happen in any era. In some eras he never even makes the NHL.. in some he flourishes for awhile offensively but his overall game is lacking. However pretty much any TRUE star player with a long career is going to be a star anywhere in any era. Mike Gartner is not a superstar and depending on your definition of a HHOFer some might not want him there... however his record says he is an effective secondary scorer for 15+ years and among the fastest players in the game in any era. With crappy skates or the ones made today. In some eras he may have a run of 25 goal seasons and not 30-40 goal seasons but he is still pretty much the same player.

 

[Sens Rule]

It would be difficult for you to claim Lidstrom wasn't top 5 all-time. Agreeing to that gives you credibility and you can deny you're a hater but then you criticize him at every turn but I've never seen the same for Harvey or Bourque, who had their flaws too. Actions speak louder than words in this case.



Harvey was never named as a sure candidate for not being a star today. I merely questioned if him, and stars from his time, would still hold the same elite position. It actually started with Tim Horton if you read back. I don't know how it turned into another Harvey, Lidstrom, Bourque discussion.

Is it critical to every other Defenceman to say Bobby Orr is better then them? To Jagr to say Howe is a better winger? To Mario to say Gretzky was better?

If someone rates Potvin or Harvey or Bourque over Lidstrom it is not an insult in any way shape or form. OR if someone rates Lidstrom over those 3 it is the same thing. It isn't like someone is saying Leetch or Doughty or Weber or Karlsson is better then Lidstrom. One could even rate Coffey or Pronger or Robinson over some of the above with some merit, depending on what you value. People have opinions and many of them have merit, some arguments don't have the same value as others. I easily pick Potvin and Bourque over Lidstrom and I easily take a prime era Coffey over an any era Lidstrom too. Lidstrom's longevity as a top player trumps Coffey's overall, but to me the pure dynamism of Coffey at his best trumps Lidstrom for a season or a few seasons in a row. I take Bourque over Coffey in ANY GIVEN SEASON. I'd take 3 or 4 of Coffey's seasons over ANY Lidstrom season. I take ANY healthy Potvin season over most of Bourque's career except his SUPER PRIME years around 87-90 where I take Bourque over anyone but Orr maybe. Then some rate Kelly and Shore very high too.

People rate Lidstrom lower because MacInnis and Pronger and Chelios all have similar peak value seasons to Lidstrom, Lidstrom just did it EVERY YEAR for longer. People that value peak might have Lidstrom at 5 or 6 or 7 all-time. Those that value consistent greatness might have him 2 or 3 or 4. No matter what being rated one of the very best defenceman in the history of a sport played for over a hundred years is a compliment not an insult.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It would be difficult for you to claim Lidstrom wasn't top 5 all-time. Agreeing to that gives you credibility and you can deny you're a hater but then you criticize him at every turn but I've never seen the same for Harvey or Bourque, who had their flaws too. Actions speak louder than words in this case.

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah, I rank Lidstrom so high just so I can criticize more. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
When I say that Lidstrom didn't control a game or the puck to the same degree as Bourque or Harvey, that's NOT an insult. Those two, along with Orr are among THE greatest ever at doing so.
I never said or even implied that Lidstrom didn't exert a level of control on a game. All I'm saying is it wasn't to the same level, especially in the neutral and opposing zones.
That's NOT an insult so stop crying.

Harvey was never named as a sure candidate for not being a star today. I merely questioned if him, and stars from his time, would still hold the same elite position. It actually started with Tim Horton if you read back. I don't know how it turned into another Harvey, Lidstrom, Bourque discussion.

Because every time Harvey is mentioned, you and few others always decide it's time to give what you feel is Lidstrom's due against Harvey again.
Things didn't go well previously here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1084719&highlight=lidstrom+harvey here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=930847&highlight=lidstrom+harvey here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=871781&highlight=lidstrom+harvey or here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=850962&highlight=lidstrom+harvey

 

[Hardyvan123]

How about the Norris did not exist until 53/54 and Harvey was a top defenceman during Howe's full 4 year peak and a first team all-star the last 3 years of that peak.

Might want to know some history before you call people out on not knowing it.

Seems that is all this thread is. People wanting to ignore history.

seasons and not 30-40 goal seasons but he is still pretty much the same player.

I know it didn't exist but it's pretty clear that Kelly would have won those 3 Norris trophies over Harvey who was beating out a fairly pedestrian crew for that 2nd 1 all star team nod most years.

The thing is that history is treated as nostalgia here too often in that a critical eye is given to more recent guys, guys most of us have seen and who have played in more competitive circumstances.

Sadly the same critical eye is put away when looking at stars of yesteryear and I have no idea on why but it makes our top position lists slanted in favor of one group over another and as time goes on one will only have to wonder how great any modern day player will need to be to get on any of these lists if the same criteria and group think remains.

 

[Big Phil]

First of all, why are you focusing on 30 years? How about 60 years?

Secondly, if there were more "star" level defenseman now, how would we know? They couldn't all share the Norris each season and there are only 4 AS positions. Guys playing now who could be true "stars" back in the 50's might have to take a backseat currently and might not get any real accolades. That's what I see as possibly and probably happening.

You agreed earlier but it appears you've gone back to disagreeing on the changes in the talent pool because it put your whole argument in a bind.

As I said before, even when there were 6 teams compared to 30 now, there isn't a whole lot of difference of players garnering all-star votes. Much of the same guys got it. Just like today, can we admit that Weber, Keith, perhaps Chara (although he's getting older) and maybe Subban and Doughty are the best threats for the Norris? Is it possible for one of them to win it that isn't them? Possibly, but this is a pretty good bet. What I am more focused on is the top end level. Surprisingly, that hasn't changed as much as you think in the last 60 years.

I would take Lidstrom. He was better defensively and had a brilliance to his game that only he had, and fit like a glove on that Cup winning Wings team. Since you have polled every other person on earth about this though it means I'm all alone I guess. Bowman seemed to like Lidstrom a lot immediately after that '02 run, too:

"(Lidstrom) is just about the perfect player on the ice, very few mistakes," Detroit coach Scotty Bowman said. "And he scored some big goals for us."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/cup02/2002-06-14-usat-cupline.htm

That's fine. He also said Serge Savard played pretty much errorless defense. Why wouldn't Bowman speak highly of Lidstrom? He also picked Doug Harvey as the 6th best player in NHL history as well. Just saying. Bowman would have had a good seat to see this too.

Look, if you were a GM and you saw Bourque and Lidstrom you'd likely find the majority would take Bourque. I guess I should ask you this, but did you actually watch Bourque play in his career? I just don't run into people on here too often that are so adamant against Bourque over Lidstrom that actually watched Bourque himself.

The Hart is awarded to the player judged to be "most valuable to his team", which leads to a lot of confusion about the award. Bourque didn't have the star power around him that Lidstrom had. This hurt Lidstrom's chance of getting votes. Kind of like how Bourque didn't get a single vote in '93 when his teammate Oates finished 4th.

Now, for the last time. Imagine the current NHL. Now remove all the Americans and Europeans. That's a lot of star power and Hart (insert any trophy or accolade here) nominees, isn't it? Now find a random way to cut the Canadian players in half, or by 1/3 if you wish, and remove that portion. Is it harder or easier for the top remaining players to win the Hart or be nominated? The answer is that it's easier, of course. Now add that context to Harvey's Hart and AS record. Or at least try or acknowledge it instead of pretending he faced the same amount of talent and humanity as more current players.

I'm pretty sure Harvey had a ton of great players he played with too. Making it even harder to stick out, wouldn't you agree? I didn't say this before either, but before the player's union, you had your star players doing other jobs in the summer or even during the season. Maurice Richard worked at a factory during the day at one point. These guys weren't millionaires with a luxurious life. Now, you seem to take every advantage the older players have and hold it against them compared to the modern players, but what about the disadvantages? This is one of them. Just another example that you weren't a patsy in the original 6. So it is important to balance out these things.

Harvey having 11 all-star nods back then was unheard of. Howe had 21, still a record. Glenn Hall has the most a goalie had, 11. Beliveau had 10. Bourque of course had 19. But are you seeing a theme here? Considering the average career spanned shorter in the 1950s and 1960s don't you think it is pretty amazing that he got 11 in the first place? Can't you see the company he is keeping with his peers? Pretty elite right?

I've always said the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming they COULDN'T do the same things. Not the person saying they could. Because they did all of this stuff being paid little money, with shabby equipment, travelling by train and often holding down another job. Why wouldn't Doug Harvey of all people be the perfect person able to adjust to the modern game today? Especially if he was born the same year as Sidney Crosby. What in your mind do you think would make him worse and not better? My feeling is that there isn't a defenseman as good as Red Kelly in the NHL today. This was Harvey's fiercest competitor. He would beat him. Harvey was also a pioneer of the spinorama. Do you think he couldn't do that move better today than back then? I think he could. Patrick Kane scores goals while doing it and before him Denis Savard, so couldn't a player like Harvey who controlled the game so well do this too? Anyway, we see lesser defensemen consistently on AS teams in today's game. Why wouldn't Harvey be the premier defenseman today? Just because there are more players but still not very many at the cream of the crop?

You focus on Bourque's 19 AS nominations to Lidstrom's 12 but Harvey only had 11. Hmmm... Is this important or not because apparently you've ranked Harvey over both.

It's one piece of the puzzle out of many, yes.

So did Lidstrom in '02 and his other teams had lots of HOFers as well.

He did. But I would say the Habs had greater players, and more of them in their primes wouldn't you? Just saying.

 

[danincanada]

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Yeah, I rank Lidstrom so high just so I can criticize more. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
When I say that Lidstrom didn't control a game or the puck to the same degree as Bourque or Harvey, that's NOT an insult. Those two, along with Orr are among THE greatest ever at doing so.
I never said or even implied that Lidstrom didn't exert a level of control on a game. All I'm saying is it wasn't to the same level, especially in the neutral and opposing zones.
That's NOT an insult so stop crying.

Laugh it up all you want. You constantly criticize Lidstrom but won't touch Harvey and it's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. Here are issues you, and other posters here, have had with Lidstrom over the years in comparisons with Bourque:

Lidstrom didn't enter the NHL until he was 21 while Bourque was 19. Harvey started at 23.

Lidstrom was surrounded by a better team than Bourque. Harvey was on the Canadiens dynasty of the 50's - doesn't get any better than that.

Bourque had 19 AS nominations. Lidstrom had 12 and Harvey had 11.

Now you will try to stick to "Harvey controlled the puck more" which is not measurably in any way of course. We do know that he took part in far less offense than Lidstrom or Bourque though so this claim doesn't seem to work if you look at the only measurable way available. In fact, Lidstrom is closer in adjusted points to Bourque than Harvey is to Lidstrom. I know I know, you don't like adjusted points because, even though they provide better context than raw points when comparing across eras, they work against most of your arguments. In this case you'd better use adjusted points because raw points make it even worse for Harvey. Good luck with that.

This is just looking at it in the peer to peer way as well. Add on the enormous growth in the talent pool since Harvey's time and I don't know how anyone could claim he edges out Lidstrom or Bourque. Even peer to peer, Harvey's and Lidstrom's careers mirror each other so much that either Bourque is ahead of both or behind both. Any other way simply lacks consistency.

Because every time Harvey is mentioned, you and few others always decide it's time to give what you feel is Lidstrom's due against Harvey again.
Things didn't go well previously here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1084719&highlight=lidstrom+harvey here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=930847&highlight=lidstrom+harvey here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=871781&highlight=lidstrom+harvey or here http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=850962&highlight=lidstrom+harvey

Do you really think these old threads provided a definitive answer? If they did then wouldn't it be easy to summarize it here? Nice try.

 

[danincanada]

As I said before, even when there were 6 teams compared to 30 now, there isn't a whole lot of difference of players garnering all-star votes. Much of the same guys got it. Just like today, can we admit that Weber, Keith, perhaps Chara (although he's getting older) and maybe Subban and Doughty are the best threats for the Norris? Is it possible for one of them to win it that isn't them? Possibly, but this is a pretty good bet. What I am more focused on is the top end level. Surprisingly, that hasn't changed as much as you think in the last 60 years.

As you showed earlier you were actually wrong about this. Did you forget already? Harvey’s years only had 6 different All-Stars (only Canadian), the late 70’s only had 7 different All-Stars (Salming being the only Euro), then it increased. The early 90’s had 10 different All-Stars (4 being American) and the most recent four years had 13 (including 4 Europeans and 1 American). So it went from 6, to 7, to 10, to 13 now. I know you can count so how are you still stuck claiming this hasn’t changed? You used 5 years so the maximum amount of players who could be nominated in the top 4 would be 20. The minimum of course would be 4.

Karlsson isn’t a Norris threat? He won one recently. You can add Suter and Pietrangelo to your list as potential Norris threats going forward. More may be on the way including Seth Jones, possibly Hedman and OEL. There are a huge number of young guys who could become threats actually. It’s far more than in the past and they are coming from various countries and developmental programs. Keep denying it if you want, or deal with reality. This has changed a ton.

Look, if you were a GM and you saw Bourque and Lidstrom you'd likely find the majority would take Bourque. I guess I should ask you this, but did you actually watch Bourque play in his career? I just don't run into people on here too often that are so adamant against Bourque over Lidstrom that actually watched Bourque himself.

Really, most GM’s would take Bourque over Lidstrom? According to who? You?

I watched Bourque from ’87 on so I missed his early years live but I have went back and watched some games and lots of highlights. He was an all-time great, no doubt about it. I just think Lidstrom edges him out because he was better defensively and helped lead his teams to multiple championships. Those are things I value in a player. You don’t run into people “on here” who back Lidstrom but “here” is not the only place that matters.

David Shaolts has been around a long time as a hockey writer and spoken with more hockey (NHL) people than either of us:

Unfortunately for the Red Wings and the NHL, the man most hockey observers say is second only to Bobby Orr as the best defenceman in history is expected to announce his retirement Thursday after 20 seasons.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/hockey/lidstrom-just-a-wonderful-player/article4219768/

I'm pretty sure Harvey had a ton of great players he played with too. Making it even harder to stick out, wouldn't you agree? I didn't say this before either, but before the player's union, you had your star players doing other jobs in the summer or even during the season. Maurice Richard worked at a factory during the day at one point. These guys weren't millionaires with a luxurious life. Now, you seem to take every advantage the older players have and hold it against them compared to the modern players, but what about the disadvantages? This is one of them. Just another example that you weren't a patsy in the original 6. So it is important to balance out these things.

What advantages am I holding against older players, exactly? I’m pointing out that they had less guys to compete with and we should acknowledge this, not ignore it. Again, since you seemed to miss it:

Imagine the current NHL. Now remove all the Americans and Europeans. That's a lot of star power and Hart (insert any trophy or accolade here) nominees, isn't it? Now find a random way to cut the Canadian players in half, or by 1/3 if you wish, and remove that portion. Is it harder or easier for the top remaining players to win the Hart or be nominated? The answer is that it's easier, of course. Now add that context to Harvey's Hart and AS record. Or at least try or acknowledge it instead of pretending he faced the same amount of talent and humanity as more current players.

Harvey having 11 all-star nods back then was unheard of. Howe had 21, still a record. Glenn Hall has the most a goalie had, 11. Beliveau had 10. Bourque of course had 19. But are you seeing a theme here? Considering the average career spanned shorter in the 1950s and 1960s don't you think it is pretty amazing that he got 11 in the first place? Can't you see the company he is keeping with his peers? Pretty elite right?

It was unheard of Harvey to have 11 but Howe had 21, Hall had 11, and Howe had 10? Didn’t this seem silly when you typed it? Yes, I agree though, 11 AS nominations is great for any era.

I've always said the burden of proof is on the person who is claiming they COULDN'T do the same things. Not the person saying they could. Because they did all of this stuff being paid little money, with shabby equipment, travelling by train and often holding down another job. Why wouldn't Doug Harvey of all people be the perfect person able to adjust to the modern game today? Especially if he was born the same year as Sidney Crosby. What in your mind do you think would make him worse and not better? My feeling is that there isn't a defenseman as good as Red Kelly in the NHL today. This was Harvey's fiercest competitor. He would beat him. Harvey was also a pioneer of the spinorama. Do you think he couldn't do that move better today than back then? I think he could. Patrick Kane scores goals while doing it and before him Denis Savard, so couldn't a player like Harvey who controlled the game so well do this too? Anyway, we see lesser defensemen consistently on AS teams in today's game. Why wouldn't Harvey be the premier defenseman today? Just because there are more players but still not very many at the cream of the crop?

You’ve always said the burden of proof is on someone in my position. It’s great you give yourself this break, but the burden on proof should be on anyone who is comparing across eras.

Once again, I didn’t say Harvey couldn’t adjust to the modern game, I just question if he would take the exact same elite spot he had in the 50’s when we know the game has grown so much. And again, it’s not about Harvey being worse or better today. He could be exactly who he was. The question is whether or not all these other great defenseman we have today would make it far more difficult on him to grab that top spot. Are you even reading what I’m typing in this thread? I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

Your opinion is that both Kelly and Harvey are better than anyone we have today. I think this is very unlikely and you already know why.

I can do that spinorama move Harvey did. It all depends how quickly a player can do it so he actually pulls it off and doesn’t look foolish in a game. Harvey didn’t do it quickly but I’m sure he could with today’s equipment. Like Doughty does, not the way Kane or Savard have done it because they actually scored goals doing it, not just avoid a check at the offensive blue line.

It's one piece of the puzzle out of many, yes.

You made it sound like a huge piece of the puzzle when comparing Bourque with Lidstrom. Now it is being downplayed as just one piece of the puzzle. Interesting.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Laugh it up all you want. You constantly criticize Lidstrom but won't touch Harvey and it's obvious to anyone who has been paying attention. Here are issues you, and other posters here, have had with Lidstrom over the years in comparisons with Bourque:

Lidstrom didn't enter the NHL until he was 21 while Bourque was 19. Harvey started at 23.

22 actually, his bday is 6 days before Xmas and Harvey has a later start because he was li8ke a 3 sport athlete and because hockey people didn't understand his style. A style that 5 years later, EVERYONE was emulating and have since btw.

Lidstrom was surrounded by a better team than Bourque. Harvey was on the Canadiens dynasty of the 50's - doesn't get any better than that.

Harvey won his last Norris as a Ranger in 61/62 and despite losing the Norris to Pilote the following year in 62/63, he still managed to lead all Dmen in scoring by 9 points (39-30)

Bourque had 19 AS nominations. Lidstrom had 12 and Harvey had 11.

True and this is one point Bourque has over Harvey.

Now you will try to stick to "Harvey controlled the puck more" which is not measurably in any way of course. We do know that he took part in far less offense than Lidstrom or Bourque though so this claim doesn't seem to work if you look at the only measurable way available. In fact, Lidstrom is closer in adjusted points to Bourque than Harvey is to Lidstrom. I know I know, you don't like adjusted points because, even though they provide better context than raw points when comparing across eras, they work against most of your arguments. In this case you'd better use adjusted points because raw points make it even worse for Harvey. Good luck with that.

Yep, vs Bourque there is case to be made but not so much vs Lidstrom. You keep using AS's but ignore that while yes, Harvey scored less raw and Adjusted points than Lidstrom, when you look at the scoring leaders, Harvey was averaging 35-40 points a season against Art Ross winners averaging around 80-85 points.
Lidstrom was averaging about 55-60 points a season against Art ross winners averaging around 110-115.
Looks to me that Harvey and Lidstrom are producing at close to the same level relative to their peers.
Bourque of course was a multiple top-10 finisher so his offensive advantage is more than just a slight one over both players.

And you can keep downplaying Harvey ability to handle the puck and control the pace of a game all you want. You're not going to get anywhere as we have piles upon piles of articles, eye-witness accounts and quotes about Harvey's prowess in this regard that remove any chance what so ever of even a slight reasonable doubt.
Harvey might just be THE greatest Dman ever at controlling a game, some say that he did so even better than Orr did.

Harvey's biggest negatives were off the ice. Owners labeled him a troublemaker and he had a well known substance abuse problem.

This is just looking at it in the peer to peer way as well. Add on the enormous growth in the talent pool since Harvey's time and I don't know how anyone could claim he edges out Lidstrom or Bourque. Even peer to peer, Harvey's and Lidstrom's careers mirror each other so much that either Bourque is ahead of both or behind both. Any other way simply lacks consistency.

Actually, the problem here is that yes, Harvey and Lidstrom do mirror each other a lot but so do Harvey and Bourque.
At the end of the day, not only does Harvey check off all the same boxes that Lidstrom checks vs Bourque but Harvey also checks a few that Lidstrom doesn't.

Then we come to the biggest part of it all and the part you avoid like the plague...
Harvey changed the game!!! Over 60 years now and counting, every Dman that plays the game whether in peewee or the NHL, continues to further Harvey's legacy.

So you just keep on only focusing on some of the points and ignore the ones that don't fit your narrative [mod]

 

[danincanada]

22 actually, his bday is 6 days before Xmas and Harvey has a later start because he was li8ke a 3 sport athlete and because hockey people didn't understand his style. A style that 5 years later, EVERYONE was emulating and have since btw.

Harvey was in the AHL for a portion of his first NHL season and in the QSHL for two seasons prior to that so he was playing hockey. He simply didn’t make it to the NHL until he was 22…probably actually 23 since he played 24 games in the AHL that season.

You are very understanding towards Harvey’s plight in this regard. Is this really the same poster who would never give Lidstrom a single break even though he was Swedish, and had mandatory military training to serve?

Harvey won his last Norris as a Ranger in 61/62 and despite losing the Norris to Pilote the following year in 62/63, he still managed to lead all Dmen in scoring by 9 points (39-30)

And? Harvey was usually on stacked teams like Lidstrom. You don’t think Lidstrom could have gone to another franchise and won a Norris after he was already well established and still in his prime?

True and this is one point Bourque has over Harvey.

Another poster who makes this sound like it’s not a big deal now. For the Bourque/Lidstrom comparisons it was made out to be so huge. I’m seeing a trend here.

Yep, vs Bourque there is case to be made but not so much vs Lidstrom. You keep using AS's but ignore that while yes, Harvey scored less raw and Adjusted points than Lidstrom, when you look at the scoring leaders, Harvey was averaging 35-40 points a season against Art Ross winners averaging around 80-85 points.

Lidstrom was averaging about 55-60 points a season against Art ross winners averaging around 110-115.

Looks to me that Harvey and Lidstrom are producing at close to the same level relative to their peers.

Adjusted points is a far more accurate way of telling us how they did compared to their peers and the league at that time. You want to just sweep this away with a very vague statistical comparison. You basically invented a new form of comparison because you don’t want to deal with a more accurate and widely used one. At least you’re still trying.

Bourque of course was a multiple top-10 finisher so his offensive advantage is more than just a slight one over both players.

Correct, but don’t act like Lidstrom and Harvey are neck and neck. Lidstrom has more than a slight advantage over Harvey as well. Like I pointed out earlier, Lidstrom is further ahead of Harvey in adjusted points than Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom.

And you can keep downplaying Harvey ability to handle the puck and control the pace of a game all you want. You're not going to get anywhere as we have piles upon piles of articles, eye-witness accounts and quotes about Harvey's prowess in this regard that remove any chance what so ever of even a slight reasonable doubt.

Harvey might just be THE greatest Dman ever at controlling a game, some say that he did so even better than Orr did.

If Harvey was even better at controlling the game than Orr then why didn’t it translate into far more offensive numbers? Something isn’t adding up here in your claims. Was he great at controlling the game but terrible at turning it into offense? You say dmen didn’t take part in offense as much but then claim Harvey controlled the game more. You’re just not making any sense here.

I watched the highlight films of the ’54 and ’55 finals the other day and I didn’t see Harvey handling the puck nearly as much as you claim. He was playing some good D. The Cup winning OT goal wasn’t a good showing for him though.

Harvey's biggest negatives were off the ice. Owners labeled him a troublemaker and he had a well known substance abuse problem.

I didn’t want to bring this up earlier but that’s one potential problem Harvey could have in the modern era. With the millions players earn now a substance abuse problem could spiral out of control very quickly. On the other hand, maybe he’d get into a program and get help so who knows.

Actually, the problem here is that yes, Harvey and Lidstrom do mirror each other a lot but so do Harvey and Bourque.
At the end of the day, not only does Harvey check off all the same boxes that Lidstrom checks vs Bourque but Harvey also checks a few that Lidstrom doesn't.

Name these boxes. I know you’re just doing the peer to peer thing of course but I’m still interested.

Then we come to the biggest part of it all and the part you avoid like the plague...
Harvey changed the game!!! Over 60 years now and counting, every Dman that plays the game whether in peewee or the NHL, continues to further Harvey's legacy.

I haven’t avoided it, I simply don’t see what this has to do with ranking who was the better player. It’s way overblown too and just shows how unevolved the sport was at that time. Lidstrom did what Harvey did and took it to another level because the game was so much quicker and he had to deal with a bigger variety of players from different countries and developmental programs.

So you just keep on only focusing on some of the points and ignore the ones that don't fit your narrative [mod]

Hehe, you’re the one who wanted to avoid adjusted stats and focus on the top scoring forwards instead. In a very vague way to boot.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This is coming from someone who has a picture of Brind'Amour hoisting the Cup over his head?

If you ever meet Rod in the future ask him what the highlight of his career was. Then come back to me and I'll tell you what he said.

In my opinion the playoffs and winning the Cup should matter most to all fans and players. I actually can't believe anyone would think otherwise.

As a fan the most crushing time is to lose a playoff series because that means it's over until October and the team failed to reach the ultimate goal.

If a player is more concerned about money then it will inevitably show in his play, especially when the playoffs start. The playoffs is what separates the men from the boys. Playoff series bring more matchups, rivalries, and momentum swings plus there's the grind of it all.

Re-quoting the line that I called a "fallacy":

You're focused so much on the regular season but the playoffs is what really matters to NHL players and most fans.

First of all, you're drawing a false choice between the regular season and playoffs. I'd wager that NHL players and fans would near-universally tell you that BOTH the regular season and playoffs are important. The lone exception being the seasonal bandwagoners who don't tune into hockey at all until April.

Second, what's emotionally important to players or fans is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. I'm sure everyone realizes that winning a Cup is a memorable career highlight -- but it doesn't necessarily have any bearing on evaluating the quality of the player involved. Brind'amour wasn't automatically a better player than Joe Thornton in 2006 just because he won the Cup and Joe didn't. Stardom and excellence aren't determined by which team wins the last game of the season. Frankly, the emphasis on playoff outcomes rests on a premise of tournament superiority that has its roots in ticket sales and marketing.

Likewise, even looking at the full scope of careers, there has to be some care taken to apply playoff results appropriately when comparing two players. If those players went head-to-head in a series or were otherwise in comparable situations against comparable opponents, sure. But it's funny how the idea that the playoffs are "what really matters" in player comparisons only seems to surface when the argument involves someone who played on a dynasty.

What really makes it a fallacy, though, is that it implies an arbitrary judgment that this type of contest is superior to that type of contest. That a 7-game series against one opponent tells you more about an individual player than an 82-game round-robin against 29 opponents. Maybe it tells you something specific and different about him -- maybe it just tells you something about that specific matchup -- in a lot of cases it gives you an answer that's downright deceptive. In any case, it certainly isn't a defensible principle once you scratch below the surface.

So yes, I do believe it's a fallacy.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Harvey was in the AHL for a portion of his first NHL season and in the QSHL for two seasons prior to that so he was playing hockey. He simply didn’t make it to the NHL until he was 22…probably actually 23 since he played 24 games in the AHL that season.

How about you read his bio instead of guessing. He was a multi sport athlete and eventually chose hockey.
Most players didn't make the NHL until they were 20 or older in those days.
Harvey's style was also not understood and some scouts mistakenly labeled him as lazy or disinterested because of it.

You are very understanding towards Harvey’s plight in this regard. Is this really the same poster who would never give Lidstrom a single break even though he was Swedish, and had mandatory military training to serve?

First off, Lidstrom wasn't even drafted in his first year of eligibility, he was passed over completely in '88 and second his 80 days of mandatory military service didn't stop him from playing 3 seasons in the SEL.

And? Harvey was usually on stacked teams like Lidstrom. You don’t think Lidstrom could have gone to another franchise and won a Norris after he was already well established and still in his prime?

We'll never know will we but Harvey did period so your original point is moot now isn't it.
And it's also beyond me how Harvey didn't pick up a 12th All-star nod in 62/63.
We also have an interview with Bowman in regards to the '68 playoffs where he called a 43 year old Harvey up for game 7 vs Philly and he played close to 50 minutes and was amazing.

Another poster who makes this sound like it’s not a big deal now. For the Bourque/Lidstrom comparisons it was made out to be so huge. I’m seeing a trend here.

Who said it wasn't a factor in a Bourque vs Harvey comparison? This is a definite advantage for Bourque over both players.
See below for further explanation.

Adjusted points is a far more accurate way of telling us how they did compared to their peers and the league at that time. You want to just sweep this away with a very vague statistical comparison. You basically invented a new form of comparison because you don’t want to deal with a more accurate and widely used one. At least you’re still trying.

Again, it was a different time, it was an even lower scoring time than at any time in Lidstrom's career and the biggest difference was simply that Dmen didn't score as many goals as they do now. The reason for that is two-fold; the Slapshot was in its infancy and that Dmen were not generally part of the team offensive strategy and wouldn't be until Orr changed that. THAT is the biggest difference between Lidstrom and Harvey's point totals.
That still didn't stop Harvey from finishing top-10 in assists 4 times at a time when Dmen weren't supposed to finish top-10 in any offensive related category. Oh and btw, that's almost a match for Lidstrom's top-10 finishes in assists (5 times) and that's while Dmen WERE included in the offensive philosophies of the team.
Using Adjusted Stats and accurate in the same sentence is never going to work out well heh and using relative position to the first and/or second place scorer is NOT something new, sorry, it really isn't.

Correct, but don’t act like Lidstrom and Harvey are neck and neck. Lidstrom has more than a slight advantage over Harvey as well. Like I pointed out earlier, Lidstrom is further ahead of Harvey in adjusted points than Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom.

Nope, Adjusted stats only tells part of the story and sometimes, very little of it. Any other form of comparison has then really close and both well behind Bourque offensively.

Again, when your entire argument relies only on Adjusted Stats, you are already starting in a hole and there will be very little respect for said argument.

If Harvey was even better at controlling the game than Orr then why didn’t it translate into far more offensive numbers? Something isn’t adding up here in your claims. Was he great at controlling the game but terrible at turning it into offense? You say dmen didn’t take part in offense as much but then claim Harvey controlled the game more. You’re just not making any sense here.

I answered this above but just to refresh, it translated in Harvey finishing top-10 in assists 4 times and top-5 twice. In that day and age, that is more than just mildly impressive.
And his game control wasn't just about offense, it was in fact more about defense. He was famous for slowing the game down by ragging the puck when the other team was pressing.

I watched the highlight films of the ’54 and ’55 finals the other day and I didn’t see Harvey handling the puck nearly as much as you claim. He was playing some good D. The Cup winning OT goal wasn’t a good showing for him though.

I've seen the same film and you're basing this off of highlights, you need to watch full games and it becomes quickly apparent. You will see Harvey control the puck, speed up or down games more in a period than you will see Lidstrom handle the puck in 3 games total.
But hey, you just keep on arguing against the massive pile of evidence about this aspect of Harvey's game. Good luck

Name these boxes. I know you’re just doing the peer to peer thing of course but I’m still interested.

Game and puck control is a big box. One that both players have over Lidstrom by a fair gap with Harvey being even better at it than Bourque was.

I haven’t avoided it, I simply don’t see what this has to do with ranking who was the better player. It’s way overblown too and just shows how unevolved the sport was at that time. Lidstrom did what Harvey did and took it to another level because the game was so much quicker and he had to deal with a bigger variety of players from different countries and developmental programs.

Oh I'm sorry, you don't avoid it, you simply dismiss it completely every time heh, my bad
That's your problem, not mine nor almost anyone else's.

Why I have Harvey #2 and Bourque #3 is because Harvey controlled a game and the puck better and because Harvey changed the game and the way Dmen have been playing defensively for over 60 years now.
Dismiss it, argue it, do whatever the hell you want but that fact is not going any where.
From now on, every time you try to downplay it and/or insult Harvey's legacy, I'm simply going to say tough ****, live with it!!!
It's about respect for what he did and what he had to go through when he went through that wall by himself.
You don't want to give respect, you're not going to get any.

Do you honestly think it's some kind coincidence that the #1 and #2 Dmen are also the 2 most responsible for changing the game to this day.
Again, dismiss it all you want but thems da facts son.