Who would still be a star?

[danincanada]

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.

I actually have his bio but haven't got around to reading it yet. I don't need to guess though, it's well documented that he was playing hockey. It's not like he was playing baseball each winter leading up to his time in the NHL.

There were several players who played at 19 or 20 back then. That's not my beef anyways, it's yours with Lidstrom and it's something you aren't consistent with. You've always been so strict with Lidstrom but Harvey is exempt from this even though they are typically in the same boat. You don't have to admit it; it's obvious as I've pointed out.

People thought Lidstrom was just a soft offense-only Euro early on as well. Guess he and Harvey are similar in that regard because they were misunderstood.

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.

The point is he was in Sweden so he could serve his military service much easier, couldn't he? He was passed over but still played in the NHL earlier than Harvey, so what's your point?

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.

Orr had to come along and change it even though you hinted that Harvey may have controlled the game more? Your story makes absolutely no sense in so many ways.

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.

Harvey was basically playing in a Canadian-only league so the comparisons where he’s close to Lidstrom are not as impressive as you think they are. Take out the Americans and Europeans from Lidstrom’s time (minus Lidstrom, of course) and he typically finishes even higher in league assists, doesn’t he?

Adjusted stats are the best we have. You just want to ignore them because they don’t fit into your argument.

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.

Like what? In raw stats, which is usually what you like for your 80’s stars, Lidstrom blows Harvey away. In team point placing he’s got Harvey beat handily as well. Here are their top finishes on their teams:

Lidstrom: 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10

Harvey: 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21

This, of course, was a huge point for posters choosing Bourque over Lidstrom.

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.

I still don’t even know what you are relying on. Excuses for why Harvey didn’t produce as much is all I’m reading. You don’t want to touch raw stats for obvious reasons so you’re searching for some obscure statistical comparisons. It’s quite comical actually.

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

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.

Where are you watching full games? NHL Network has aired some but I don’t see any online. Bowman remembers Harvey and Lidstrom being very similar in that they were excellent passers and that was their strength. As the old adage goes, the puck can move quicker than the skater. If Harvey held onto the puck more, then great for him; it didn’t result in as much offense as Lidstrom (or Bourque) was involved in though.

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.

I don’t really care how you rank them. I just wanted to point out how inconsistent you’ve been and I’ve done that. Now you’ve resorted to your backup plan. Like I said a while ago, you should just stick with that cause the other stuff isn’t working.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Harvey was basically playing in a Canadian-only league so the comparisons where he’s close to Lidstrom are not as impressive as you think they are. Take out the Americans and Europeans from Lidstrom’s time (minus Lidstrom, of course) and he typically finishes even higher in league assists, doesn’t he?

Interesting question. I'm starting this post before doing the research, so I'll be interested to see how it turns out...

Here are Harvey's and Lidstrom's assist finishes each year of their career excluding Americans and Europeans. Seasons affected by 10+ missed games are noted by a *:

Age | Harvey | Lidstrom | . | Harvey | Lidstrom . |Among|Skaters| blank |Among|Defensemen
21 |x|21||x|6
22 |x|70||x|16
23 |85*|25||25*|9
24 |38*|67||4*|18
25 |33|16||4|3
26 |11|16||3|1
27 |21|11||4|2
28 |7|10||1|2
29 |13|3||3|1
30 |2|4||1|1
31 |6|4||2|1
32 |5|12||1|2
33 |13|42||1|9
34 |54|x||12|x
35 |39|5||8|1
36 |17*|18||1*|2
37 |34|3||7|1
38 |11|16||1|3
39 |x|20||x|6
40 |x|9||x|1
41 |x|88||x|20
Avg |24.3 (19.1)|23||4.9 (3.7)|5.25

Please note:
* To avoid splitting hairs about GP, all ties were counted to Harvey/Lidstrom's advantage.
* This is based on country of birth, so the Mikitas of the world were excluded.
* Harvey also had fractional seasons at ages 39, 42 and 44. The results were too small to be meaningful here.
* The average at the bottom includes a parenthetical average for Harvey that doesn't include the * seasons.

There's not a lot of difference between them, but I feel like these numbers favor Lidstrom ever so slightly. Yes his average season tends to be slightly lower than Harvey's, but that is basically punishing him for playing longer on both ends of his career. If you look at top-1, top-3, or top-5 seasons it is apparent that Lidstrom has the advantage (6-to-7, 9-to-13 and 12-to-13 respectively).

Here are their top finishes on their teams:

Lidstrom: 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10

Harvey: 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21

While the chart above only counted assists and not points, putting it together with these team finishes seems to weaken Harvey's case a bit.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

Yeah, but don't you find it strange that the league is five times larger than it was then and yet there has only been twice as many in a 30 team league than in a 6 team league? It shows you that it still was hard to compete against all of those guys. It was never easy. And there are some names that make you think as well. Francois Beauchemin. Lubomir Vishnovsky. Look, from 2010 to 2014 it's been a bit of a weird transition. There really isn't "the" guy to look out for. For a while it was Lidstrom. Before that it was Bourque. Then either one of Potvin or Robinson. No one today is as good as either of them, and that's not a knock. But even if you want to cling to the fact that there are more players vying for the Norris today than ever before, that hasn't really been the entire point either. Because there were more today than the 1970s as well. The main point has been is there really a flagship defenseman in the NHL today who owns this award and is a favourite going in year after year? There hasn't been, which means I can argue that there is less top end competition (I mean the real cream of the crop) to win this award.

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.

We'll see here. Don't count the chickens of these young guys before they hatch. Redden and Berard were young once as well. Neither came close to a Norris but if this is 1996 you'd assume they would have.

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.

No question in my mind who I take on my team. You have to ask yourself if the roles are reversed do the Wings do any worse? Do the Bruins do better? Lidstrom never had a season quite like Bourque in 1990 among others so why would he as a Bruin? Personally I prefer to see them judged on their careers not on what "may" have happened. And Bourque still wins that battle.

His overall game had higher "highs" than Lidstrom. He controlled the game more, he carried the puck a significant more amount of time. He holds the all-time shots record. Think about that. This is a defenseman and his name isn't Coffey or Orr.

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.

Well you can look at those names for instance. Gordie Howe. Glenn Hall. That's some pretty elite company don't you think?

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.

Harvey already proved himself, he doesn't need to do it again. You need to prove why he wouldn't be as good. It's pretty impossible isn't it? That's because no star player has ever fallen off a haywagon. They were all great for a reason.

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.

Yeah I'll stick with that for sure. Harvey and Kelly are tops in today's game. Not saying a big year from Keith or someone doesn't mean he steals a Norris or two. But year in and year out they'd be the favourites. You have to remember, both of them were trailblazers. Before Orr comes around there isn't much in the way of a rushing defenseman. This is why we saw a spike with them in the 1970s and onward to what we see today. That's all Orr by the way. But in the 1950s he was learning to tie his shoes. The innovators were Harvey and Kelly. They rushed the puck up the ice and hit their forwards with the first pass. They didn't rush like Orr because no one did, but for those standards they did some pretty innovative things. The spinorama is an example. Harvey did that in real time in the game. It worked. Remember, there are a lot of players who popularize things (eg. Roy with the butterfly style) but we often forget the one who started it.

So why would they be shell-shocked by things today when they were the ones who started the movement for defensemen in the first place? Another thing is that the current crop as I have said before of Keith, Subban, Chara, Weber, Suter, Pietrangelo, Doughty, etc. is nice. Lots of young talent. However, from a top end standpoint they do fall behind the Potvin/Robinson/Orr/Park/Salming/Lapointe group and the Bourque/Coffey/Leetch/Chelios/MacInnis/Stevens group. They just do. From a top end standpoint for sure. Harvey and Kelly I believe have a harder time penetrating the Norris in the 1970s and 1990s then in 2014. You can even compare this by taking everyone of Lidstrom's best seasons and trying to figure out where in the 1970s that he would even win a Norris. I can't think of a year. Even taking 1985-'95 let me tell you, he is in tough to win his Norrises. He doesn't win 7, that's for sure, but I wonder if he even wins two.

So unless you can build an argument for the current crop against some of the past eras, specifically the ones I mentioned, then you should admit the current top end is weaker than some eras before.

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.

It does show that Bourque was greater for longer though. That is something impossible to deny.

 

[danincanada]

Yeah, but don't you find it strange that the league is five times larger than it was then and yet there has only been twice as many in a 30 team league than in a 6 team league? It shows you that it still was hard to compete against all of those guys. It was never easy. And there are some names that make you think as well. Francois Beauchemin. Lubomir Vishnovsky. Look, from 2010 to 2014 it's been a bit of a weird transition. There really isn't "the" guy to look out for. For a while it was Lidstrom. Before that it was Bourque. Then either one of Potvin or Robinson. No one today is as good as either of them, and that's not a knock. But even if you want to cling to the fact that there are more players vying for the Norris today than ever before, that hasn't really been the entire point either. Because there were more today than the 1970s as well. The main point has been is there really a flagship defenseman in the NHL today who owns this award and is a favourite going in year after year? There hasn't been, which means I can argue that there is less top end competition (I mean the real cream of the crop) to win this award.

No, I don’t find it strange at all. Like I showed earlier, the minimum amount of guys that could be listed in your example would be 4, meaning the same 4 are nominated each year over a 5 year span. The maximum amount of guys that could be listed would be 20, meaning there are 4 different guys each year over a 5 year span. We had 6 in the 50’s and 7 in the late 70’s. That’s pretty close to the minimum of 4, isn’t it? Then in the most recent example we had 13. That’s pretty close to the maximum of 20, isn’t it? What were you expecting?

You pointed earlier to Harvey and Kelly as being the two top guys who separated themselves from their peers. Now you are pointing to Potvin and Robinson as being similar to that in the late 70’s. Why does it have to be 1 “guy” or 2 “guys”? Why couldn’t it be 3, 4, or even more? Is this impossible in your opinion? Are players really going to get downgraded because they can’t separate themselves from a bigger group of elite defenders? Then you have Lidstrom, who does separate himself, and he gets downgraded anyways because no one was close overall and therefore it was a weak class.

Sure, you can argue there aren’t any truly elite defenders but then you should also ask yourself why we’d be lacking these guys considering the talent pool we have now. Canada is still producing some great defenders such as Doughty, Weber, Keith, Subban, etc. We also have non-Canadians like Suter, Karlsson, and Chara. Then there are a whole bunch of younger guys who could jump into this group at any time. Some of these guys are going to end up having 20 year careers and then you’ll have to backtrack and rank them all-time. They still may not get their due because they lost out on AS and Norris votes to the big group of other elite dmen. It’s simply not fair if that is the case.

We'll see here. Don't count the chickens of these young guys before they hatch. Redden and Berard were young once as well. Neither came close to a Norris but if this is 1996 you'd assume they would have.

Berard had part of his eye carved out by Hossa when he was 23. Many have hinted at Redden’s decline as being at least partially due to having substance abuse problems. Are these really good examples? Sure something could happen with the guys mentioned above but other players we never expected could also emerge as elite in their mid to late 20’s. It tends to happen with defenseman.

No question in my mind who I take on my team. You have to ask yourself if the roles are reversed do the Wings do any worse? Do the Bruins do better? Lidstrom never had a season quite like Bourque in 1990 among others so why would he as a Bruin? Personally I prefer to see them judged on their careers not on what "may" have happened. And Bourque still wins that battle.

We’ll never know how Bourque would do on the Wings or how Lidstrom would do on the Bruins. We have to go by what actually happened. Lidstrom won more Norris’, won the Conn Smythe, and was a massive part of 4 Cups. In the end he had a better career and his legacy will be seen that way by most because of his accomplisments.

There’s all this talk about Bourque in ’90 for his Hart votes, or Pronger being the only guy to win the Hart since Orr. Lidstrom is the only guy to win both the Norris and Conn Smythe since Orr. That was a very special year for him because it combines the season and playoffs. Pronger had a great season in ’00 but he and his team fell apart in the playoffs. Bourque is closer because he had a tremendous season and was great in the playoffs. Lidstrom actually won both trophies though.

His overall game had higher "highs" than Lidstrom. He controlled the game more, he carried the puck a significant more amount of time. He holds the all-time shots record. Think about that. This is a defenseman and his name isn't Coffey or Orr.

Holding onto the puck and taking shots is great but winning games and Cups is the purpose of playing. Lidstrom won 900 regular season games during his career, which is the most on record for a skater, and he won 4 cups. It’s obviously difficult to gauge due to their surrounding casts but the two points you’ve made for Bourque don’t show he was the better player overall. My points for Lidstrom don’t prove it either but he sure won a lot during his career and that's the point of this team sport.

Harvey already proved himself, he doesn't need to do it again. You need to prove why he wouldn't be as good. It's pretty impossible isn't it? That's because no star player has ever fallen off a haywagon. They were all great for a reason.

Harvey proved he could win 7 Norris’ in an All-Canadian NHL of the 50’s and 60’s. He hasn’t proved, nor will he, that he could do it now. You haven’t proved he could either and that’s why we are having this discussion. Duncan Keith didn’t fall of a haywagon either and neither did the other elite guys of this era.

Yeah I'll stick with that for sure. Harvey and Kelly are tops in today's game. Not saying a big year from Keith or someone doesn't mean he steals a Norris or two. But year in and year out they'd be the favourites. You have to remember, both of them were trailblazers. Before Orr comes around there isn't much in the way of a rushing defenseman. This is why we saw a spike with them in the 1970s and onward to what we see today. That's all Orr by the way. But in the 1950s he was learning to tie his shoes. The innovators were Harvey and Kelly. They rushed the puck up the ice and hit their forwards with the first pass. They didn't rush like Orr because no one did, but for those standards they did some pretty innovative things. The spinorama is an example. Harvey did that in real time in the game. It worked. Remember, there are a lot of players who popularize things (eg. Roy with the butterfly style) but we often forget the one who started it.

It’s great that they were “trail blazers” but someone was eventually going to do it and that doesn’t mean they’re more capable with regards to those skills than everyone else in the future. There was a lot of room for the game to change back then. I respect it but this is way overblown.

So why would they be shell-shocked by things today when they were the ones who started the movement for defensemen in the first place? Another thing is that the current crop as I have said before of Keith, Subban, Chara, Weber, Suter, Pietrangelo, Doughty, etc. is nice. Lots of young talent. However, from a top end standpoint they do fall behind the Potvin/Robinson/Orr/Park/Salming/Lapointe group and the Bourque/Coffey/Leetch/Chelios/MacInnis/Stevens group. They just do. From a top end standpoint for sure. Harvey and Kelly I believe have a harder time penetrating the Norris in the 1970s and 1990s then in 2014. You can even compare this by taking everyone of Lidstrom's best seasons and trying to figure out where in the 1970s that he would even win a Norris. I can't think of a year. Even taking 1985-'95 let me tell you, he is in tough to win his Norrises. He doesn't win 7, that's for sure, but I wonder if he even wins two.

Where have I said Harvey or Kelly would be “shell-shocked” or anything like that? You keep trying to go back to this but it was never my claim and I’ve already pointed it out to you several times.

So basically your claim is that we have lacked truly elite defenseman since ’95? That’s 20 years of lesser elite defenseman even though we’ve still seen top guys come from Canada, the US, and Europe now. Teams still need those top guys to have great seasons and win Cups, and those top guys still play in all situations for half the game, and play stellar D and contribute offensively. What actual proof do you have of this? “They just do” isn’t evidence you know? In fact, you didn’t provide any backing or evidence of your claims. The older names are impressive because we can look back at their whole careers, and they were great D, but you’re not giving the current guys enough respect.

So unless you can build an argument for the current crop against some of the past eras, specifically the ones I mentioned, then you should admit the current top end is weaker than some eras before.

I still haven’t seen you build any kind of argument other than your opinion, which hasn’t been backed by anything. I’ve pointed to their being elite defenseman from several different nations and developmental programs. It’s not just Canada anymore and that should make it more difficult to stand out now.

It does show that Bourque was greater for longer though. That is something impossible to deny.

Yup, Bourque was greater for longer than both Harvey and Lidstrom then, yet he’s apparently ranked in the middle.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I actually have his bio but haven't got around to reading it yet. I don't need to guess though, it's well documented that he was playing hockey. It's not like he was playing baseball each winter leading up to his time in the NHL.

Football actually.

There were several players who played at 19 or 20 back then. That's not my beef anyways, it's yours with Lidstrom and it's something you aren't consistent with. You've always been so strict with Lidstrom but Harvey is exempt from this even though they are typically in the same boat. You don't have to admit it; it's obvious as I've pointed out.

Except very, very few played before they were 20-21 back then. Lidstrom not playing basically till he was 22 in today's NHL is much more of a rarity than Harvey not playing until he was 23 in the NHL of that time. Lidstrom not being drafted in his first year of eligibility is even more rare.
In the end though this is simply another notch for Bourque over both players, who all things considered, are about even in their late starts so I'm really not sure what Lidstrom even has to do with it?

People thought Lidstrom was just a soft offense-only Euro early on as well. Guess he and Harvey are similar in that regard because they were misunderstood.

Oh are we back to revisionism with Lidstrom again that he was already in 1997 form in 1991? Gimme a break, Lidstrom had to learn, improve and grow into his style. When he rounded into form and was successful, he was recognized for it. There was no "Oh, how did we miss that in '91 or '92 going on because he quite simply wasn't as good at it then period.
Harvey came into the League playing his "new" style and was not understood for years. Once he was though...60 years later and all that again heh.

The point is he was in Sweden so he could serve his military service much easier, couldn't he? He was passed over but still played in the NHL earlier than Harvey, so what's your point?

See above, your excuse doesn't fly for the times involved, sorry.

Orr had to come along and change it even though you hinted that Harvey may have controlled the game more? Your story makes absolutely no sense in so many ways.

How many more times do I have to mention offensive philosophies not including Dmen or the infancy of the Slapshot to you before it actually sinks in?
Just keep on ignoring the answer when given to you though but I assure you that you are the only one having trouble making sense of it.

Harvey was basically playing in a Canadian-only league so the comparisons where he’s close to Lidstrom are not as impressive as you think they are. Take out the Americans and Europeans from Lidstrom’s time (minus Lidstrom, of course) and he typically finishes even higher in league assists, doesn’t he?

Yeah because if Crosby had to face Chara or Subban 28 times a year, his offense would go up right?
Same thing goes for Harvey facing a guy like Howe/Hull or other top Dmen like Pilote and the very best goalies 14, 28, 42 ect times a season.
How many points does Lidstrom lose if he had to face Brodeur/Stevens and the Devils 14 times a season in the 90's instead of just twice?
Fair question.
The only time in Lidstrom's career that they met in the PO's was '95 and Lidstrom finished that series with 2 PP assists in 4 games and was a -6...ouch

Adjusted stats are the best we have. You just want to ignore them because they don’t fit into your argument.

The hell they are!!! They are a part of the equation, a piece that needs to be assigned a weight amongst multiple other factors. They are NOT a final answer, they are NOT alone and their accuracy worsens the further you go from the median.
I don't ignore them, I factor them in along with every factor.
You use them as your ONLY piece of evidence.
The only person ignoring anything is you when you only use AS's and ignore anything else thank you very much.

Like what? In raw stats, which is usually what you like for your 80’s stars, Lidstrom blows Harvey away. In team point placing he’s got Harvey beat handily as well. Here are their top finishes on their teams:

Lidstrom: 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10

Harvey: 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 21

And again, the biggest difference between them is goal totals and that's perfectly understandable considering the Slapshot's role in Dman goals today.

This, of course, was a huge point for posters choosing Bourque over Lidstrom.

And it's a huge point for Bourque over Harvey too. Point? Did I or anyone else ever say different? NO!!!

I don’t really care how you rank them. I just wanted to point out how inconsistent you’ve been and I’ve done that. Now you’ve resorted to your backup plan. Like I said a while ago, you should just stick with that cause the other stuff isn’t working.

Again, there's no backup going on, there's no last minute substitution as you're implying. I'm up front every single damned time.
I have Harvey over Bourque because he controlled the game better and changed the game forever.
Orr changed the role of Dmen, making them now part of the offensive schemes but very few can or have played like Orr.
Every single Dman in every single League in the world STILL plays like Harvey!!!

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Except very, very few played before they were 20-21 back then. Lidstrom not playing basically till he was 22 in today's NHL is much more of a rarity than Harvey not playing until he was 23 in the NHL of that time.

This isn't so, as far as I can tell. In Harvey's first season, I count about 30 players in the league younger than him (excluding those who played just a few games), including a number of defencemen. In Lidstrom's first season, I count about 38 or so younger than him, when there were many more players of course.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This isn't so, as far as I can tell. In Harvey's first season, I count about 30 players in the league younger than him (excluding those who played just a few games), including a number of defencemen. In Lidstrom's first season, I count about 38 or so younger than him, when there were many more players of course.

Hey once again let's not let actual facts get in the way of a good story eh?

While we are at it, weren't there other Dmen from the past, as early as Hod Stuart, who rushed the puck?

No doubt Harvey was good at it, and the role of Dmen was quite different in the 50's than say the 80's but the role of Dmen also changed to a more defensive first type of play under Lidstrom as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This isn't so, as far as I can tell. In Harvey's first season, I count about 30 players in the league younger than him (excluding those who played just a few games), including a number of defencemen. In Lidstrom's first season, I count about 38 or so younger than him, when there were many more players of course.

Except I wasn't debating on how many were younger, I said it was more common not to enter the NHL until 20 or older back then.
Entering the League under 20 in the 90's was a much more common occurrence.

And it was even more rare still to be passed over in the first year of eligibility.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hey once again let's not let actual facts get in the way of a good story eh?

While we are at it, weren't there other Dmen from the past, as early as Hod Stuart, who rushed the puck?

No doubt Harvey was good at it, and the role of Dmen was quite different in the 50's than say the 80's but the role of Dmen also changed to a more defensive first type of play under Lidstrom as well.

Which just brings us back to another argument...namely that Bourque's offense is downplayed in a more offensive oriented League yet Lidstrom's defense is left alone despite playing in a more defensive orientated League.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Except I wasn't debating on how many were younger, I said it was more common not to enter the NHL until 20 or older back then.
Entering the League under 20 in the 90's was a much more common occurrence.

And it was even more rare still to be passed over in the first year of eligibility.

really?

While the goalposts got moved here it would be important to point out that guys from Sweden were only just starting to get drafted in earlier rounds or at all in the early 90's (Mats Sundin (89 draft) being the big breakthrough).

the last poster called out your factual inaccuracy in that guys yougner than harvey were in the NHL at the same time at a higher rate (per team) than comapred to Lidstrom.

It's really not a point that one is going to be able to build a very strong position from, neither is the misunderstanding of hockey people to Harvey's style argument which is simply very weak.

We know that Lidstrom had a very strong start to his career in a very competitive era for Dmen and that Harvey didn't show up in all star voting in dubious competition for quite a while in his career.

I can understand why one might prefer one over the other but to not treat them under the same critical eye and challenge assumptions is truly the problem here.

this microcosm treatment is generally extended to most players form both eras, one group gets micro analyzed and criticized and the other gets press clippings and quotes pretty much showing them in positive light, it would be really more informative if a serious and detailed analysis of every player, regardless of when they played would take place but sadly this often doesn't happen.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Except I wasn't debating on how many were younger, I said it was more common not to enter the NHL until 20 or older back then.
Entering the League under 20 in the 90's was a much more common occurrence.

I was addressing the essence of your argument, that it was rarer for a young player to break into the NHL in Harvey's day. If that were true, then the numbers I quoted above would be very unlikely.

But let's take a look at the specific claim. Here are the players who played in the NHL under age 20, or just having turned 20, in 1947/48 and 1991/92, the first seasons for the players in question.

1947/48: Bill Gadsby, Ed Harrison, Gordie Howe, Red Kelly, Marty Pavelich, Metro Prystai, Paul Ronty, Ed Sandford. That's eight players in a six-team league.

1991/92: Mike Craig, Kimbi Daniels, Pat Falloon, Adam Foote, Derian Hatcher, Jaromir Jagr, Brad May, Petr Nedved, Owen Nolan, Keith Primeau, Robert Reichel, Mike Ricci, Geoff Sanderson. 13 players in a 22-team league with larger rosters.

I may have missed a few, but your claim does not seem to bear scrutiny.

And it was even more rare still to be passed over in the first year of eligibility.

Not for Europeans at the time, I would say. But this is a red herring with respect to Harvey anyway, since there was no draft at the time.

 

[Killion]

1947/48: - 1991/92:

Shouldve stopped right there. A little matter of WW2. Desperation for talent. Parallels granted with over~expansion & the fall of the Iron Curtain 40+ yrs later, but beyond that, a comparison that doesnt pass the smell test.

 

[Theokritos]

Yeah because if Crosby had to face Chara or Subban 28 times a year, his offense would go up right?
Same thing goes for Harvey facing a guy like Howe/Hull or other top Dmen like Pilote and the very best goalies 14, 28, 42 ect times a season.

The same goes for everybody in the league though. If Crosby has a harder time scoring in a six team league because quality of the opposition is higher then so have Getzlaf, Giroux, Seguin etc. Crosby's points total is going to be lower, but is his rank among top scorers going to be lower too?

 

[DyerMaker66*]

That said, even if it's true that "most" consider Harvey > Bourque, it's not by a very decisive margin. And I don't think it's true that "almost all" consider Harvey > Lidstrom, considering how often we see Lidstrom mentioned as the #2 or #3 defenseman of all time.

Lidstrom the second best defencman ever? Someone loves the Red Wings...

 

[kmad]

Lidstrom the second best defencman ever? Someone loves the Red Wings...

Lidstrom, Bourque and Harvey all have pretty good arguments for #2

I'll go with Harvey every time though.

 

[Scotty B]

Lidstrom, Bourque and Harvey all have pretty good arguments for #2

I'll go with Harvey every time though.

I saw Harvey at the tail end of his career. To me, and I have always said this, Potvin ( who seems so-ooo underrated around here ) is the second best D-man I ever saw play. There's two main reasons Isles won 19 playoff series in a row, and they are Denis and Potvin.

How anybody could rank Lidstrom ahead of Potvin is beyond me???

 

[DyerMaker66*]

Lidstrom, Bourque and Harvey all have pretty good arguments for #2

I'll go with Harvey every time though.

Those are funny ways of spelling Potvin and Robinson.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Shouldve stopped right there. A little matter of WW2. Desperation for talent. Parallels granted with over~expansion & the fall of the Iron Curtain 40+ yrs later, but beyond that, a comparison that doesnt pass the smell test.

The cause is irrelevant to this dicussion. The claim that when Harvey was young it was more difficult for a young player to break into the NHL is not borne out by the facts. If the NHL was desperate for talent, then it should have been easier for Harvey to crack the roster, rather than more difficult, which is the claim.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

The same goes for everybody in the league though. If Crosby has a harder time scoring in a six team league because quality of the opposition is higher then so have Getzlaf, Giroux, Seguin etc. Crosby's points total is going to be lower, but is his rank among top scorers going to be lower too?

It also omits the fact that while the opponents would have been better quality, so would his teammates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey WWII

Shouldve stopped right there. A little matter of WW2. Desperation for talent. Parallels granted with over~expansion & the fall of the Iron Curtain 40+ yrs later, but beyond that, a comparison that doesnt pass the smell test.

Doug Harvey served in the Canadian Navy during WWII.

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/Naval_Sports_Hockey_Stars.php

His entry into the NHL was delayed accordingly. Some of the returning vets required some adaptation time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I was addressing the essence of your argument, that it was rarer for a young player to break into the NHL in Harvey's day. If that were true, then the numbers I quoted above would be very unlikely.

But let's take a look at the specific claim. Here are the players who played in the NHL under age 20, or just having turned 20, in 1947/48 and 1991/92, the first seasons for the players in question.

1947/48: Bill Gadsby, Ed Harrison, Gordie Howe, Red Kelly, Marty Pavelich, Metro Prystai, Paul Ronty, Ed Sandford. That's eight players in a six-team league.

1991/92: Mike Craig, Kimbi Daniels, Pat Falloon, Adam Foote, Derian Hatcher, Jaromir Jagr, Brad May, Petr Nedved, Owen Nolan, Keith Primeau, Robert Reichel, Mike Ricci, Geoff Sanderson. 13 players in a 22-team league with larger rosters.

I may have missed a few, but your claim does not seem to bear scrutiny.

Take a larger sample size than a single season to show the "sign of the times" then.
Do a 5 year spread, with 2 years on either side of the one mentioned with the number of players playing at 18, 19 and 20 years old.
My claim will bare fruit.

Not for Europeans at the time, I would say. But this is a red herring with respect to Harvey anyway, since there was no draft at the time.

You mean like fellow countryman Mats Sundin, who was a year younger, drafted the same year as Lidstrom and played in the NHL at 19, a year sooner than Lidstrom oops

 

[Hardyvan123]

I saw Harvey at the tail end of his career. To me, and I have always said this, Potvin ( who seems so-ooo underrated around here ) is the second best D-man I ever saw play. There's two main reasons Isles won 19 playoff series in a row, and they are Denis and Potvin.

How anybody could rank Lidstrom ahead of Potvin is beyond me???

I agree and the only reason Lidstrom is ahead of Potvin in my books is longevity staying power has meaning outside of the bedroom as well.

That's also why I don't have Orr as my #1 guy of all time, sure for peak there is him (and Potvin is really close too) but there are too many Dmen who were very good to elite for over double the time Orr was.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree and the only reason Lidstrom is ahead of Potvin in my books is longevity staying power has meaning outside of the bedroom as well.

I agree on this one, it took a long time for me to place Lidstrom ahead of Potvin and it definitely had to do with longevity.

That's also why I don't have Orr as my #1 guy of all time, sure for peak there is him (and Potvin is really close too) but there are too many Dmen who were very good to elite for over double the time Orr was.

Only one Dman was Elite for actually double the time Orr was and that's Bourque.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Take a larger sample size than a single season to show the "sign of the times" then.
Do a 5 year spread, with 2 years on either side of the one mentioned with the number of players playing at 18, 19 and 20 years old.
My claim will bare fruit.

Unlikely as has already been pointed out, but feel free to show us the light.

You mean like fellow countryman Mats Sundin, who was a year younger, drafted the same year as Lidstrom and played in the NHL at 19, a year sooner than Lidstrom oops

you do realize that it was the first year that that a guy from Sweden was drafted that high right?

And that guys from Europe were still generally drafted below were their talent would have them because the questions about Europeans (which would change alter in the decade especially for Dmen, the claim being made here is unfounded on both fronts.

 

[Killion]

The cause is irrelevant to this dicussion. The claim that when Harvey was young it was more difficult for a young player to break into the NHL is not borne out by the facts. If the NHL was desperate for talent, then it should have been easier for Harvey to crack the roster, rather than more difficult, which is the claim.

No, its not, and thats not your decision nor prerogative to be making. If you'd like to single out Doug Harvey, theres this...

Doug Harvey served in the Canadian Navy during WWII.

http://www.nauticapedia.ca/Articles/Naval_Sports_Hockey_Stars.php

His entry into the NHL was delayed accordingly. Some of the returning vets required some adaptation time.

... he wasnt even available, late bloomer. In fact, a multi~sport talent and at that time had other options before & after serving his country but fortunately for the NHL, the Habs & the game of hockey itself, opted to play, go pro. And every Defenceman who followed including Bobby Orr owes him a debt of gratitude & thanks. He changed the game & it seems a lot of people forget that.

My claim will bare fruit.

Absolutely. You can splice & dice it a million ways from Sunday in your Ronco Veg-O-Matic, your thesis, solid no matter how thin anyone wants to chop it up.