Who would still be a star?

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey WWII

Ya. And so when people talk about Orr so reverentially, likes he's a God or something, its often jaded and subjective as he's a tragic figure (compounded further by Eaglesons duplicity). Coming into his own, had done so but still had plenty of mountain to climb. A career cut short.





Yes it was quite common actually. Beliveau in fact making a very good living in Quebec & refused to leave for Montreal, the Habs then buying the entire league, forcing his hand. But there were others in the WHL etc, guys who wouldnt sign with an NHL Club because the money was either less than or not much better than what they were making (and in fact some making more than NHL Stars), and they had no control over where they'd wind up playing. The NHL just didnt pay all that well period. Some who played Senior also employed in the community as Firemen, Milkmen, whatever. Controlled their own destiny & not interested thankyouverymuch. Doug Harvey had options as a multi~sport athlete and was an outlier to begin with. Not the best example of the more mainstream meat & potato talent NHL in~bound. A lot of the players through the 40's & into the early 50's, very circuitous routes to the NHL, many turning away from the road that led to the NHL altogether.

Doug Harvey played less than 30 games over two seasons for the Montréal Navy team during the last two WWII seasons. Hardly throughout the war.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/harvedo01.html

A number of the Q players during that time, post WWII into the early fifties when the Canadiens "bought" the league preferred the Q. Herb Carnegie, Ralph Buchanan, perhaps Fern Perreault, earned more playing in the Q while working full than they would have made playing for the Rangers or in the Rangers farm system.

Cost of living, wives could work, single residence, etc factored in.

 

[Killion]

A number of the Q players during that time, post WWII into the early fifties when the Canadiens "bought" the league preferred the Q. Herb Carnegie, Ralph Buchanan, perhaps Fern Perreault, earned more playing in the Q while working full than they would have made playing for the Rangers or in the Rangers farm system.

Cost of living, wives could work, single residence, etc factored in.

Ya. And of course guys who were just coming of age during the War who under normal circumstances wouldve gone from Junior directly into the NHL (rare, but it happened) or served some time in the minors "property of" whichever club. Such was the case of for example Ottawa native Howard Rip Riopelle. Stellar amateur & Jr. career with a straight shot really to the NHL but instead he enlisted. Served 2yrs & he too played hockey for Toronto Air Force under Joe Primeau, challenging for the Allan Cup. Upon conclusion of his service in 1945 he was asked to try~out by Toronto (Primeau) and Montreal (Gorman) and picked the Habs. Unfortunately he didnt make it, last player cut at Training Camp, and joined the Montreal Royals.

Played with them for 2yrs winning an Allan Cup in 1947, racking up 30G's & 40A's over 70 games and in 22 Playoff Games 10G's & 12A's. In 47, Riopelle & others from the Royals invited to the Habs Training Camp, and in an exhibition game that year between the Habs & the Shawinigan Cataracts who were loaned Riopelle & other Royals trying to make the big club, the Cataracts stunned the Habs 6-5. Rip Riopelle made the Canadiens, now aged 25, 47/48-49/50 for 3 seasons before a back injury knocked him out of the NHL, but not out of hockey, as he then went on to play 4 more seasons in the QSHL returning to Ottawa playing for the Senators after taking a year off, Montreal selling his rights to Ottawa. 47/48 he was initially put on a line with Richard & Lach when Blake went down to injury but ultimately spent most of his time in Montreal as a checking LW against the oppositions top lines (funny quote from him in something I read once, that "Gordie Howe embarrassed me more times than I care to remember").

So. Had he not enlisted, missed an entire season then played sporadically, 30 games or so with Toronto Air Force, entirely probable he steps right into the NHL or starts a lot sooner than 25. Whats more, as a checking specialist of which Montreal & Toronto had depth, had he instead been at a Blackhawks, Rangers or Bruins, possibly even Detroit Training Camp, mightve been a different story altogether. But the War interrupted his life as it did so many others & once untracked...... Financially, he wasnt really making a vast amount more in the NHL than he was with Ottawa, his hometown, and as he was more than capable of playing at a high level again after a year off to recuperate, then why not go back & play for the Habs?... because they had players of his kind in the system & he could wind up anywhere if he didnt make the team. So rather than risk it, his choice, not Montreals, plays for his hometown Ottawa Senators in the QSHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Government Jobs

Ya. And of course guys who were just coming of age during the War who under normal circumstances wouldve gone from Junior directly into the NHL (rare, but it happened) or served some time in the minors "property of" whichever club. Such was the case of for example Ottawa native Howard Rip Riopelle. Stellar amateur & Jr. career with a straight shot really to the NHL but instead he enlisted. Served 2yrs & he too played hockey for Toronto Air Force under Joe Primeau, challenging for the Allan Cup. Upon conclusion of his service in 1945 he was asked to try~out by Toronto (Primeau) and Montreal (Gorman) and picked the Habs. Unfortunately he didnt make it, last player cut at Training Camp, and joined the Montreal Royals.

Played with them for 2yrs winning an Allan Cup in 1947, racking up 30G's & 40A's over 70 games and in 22 Playoff Games 10G's & 12A's. In 47, Riopelle & others from the Royals invited to the Habs Training Camp, and in an exhibition game that year between the Habs & the Shawinigan Cataracts who were loaned Riopelle & other Royals trying to make the big club, the Cataracts stunned the Habs 6-5. Rip Riopelle made the Canadiens, now aged 25, 47/48-49/50 for 3 seasons before a back injury knocked him out of the NHL, but not out of hockey, as he then went on to play 4 more seasons in the QSHL returning to Ottawa playing for the Senators after taking a year off, Montreal selling his rights to Ottawa. 47/48 he was initially put on a line with Richard & Lach when Blake went down to injury but ultimately spent most of his time in Montreal as a checking LW against the oppositions top lines.

So. Had he not enlisted, missed an entire season then played sporadically, 30 games or so with Toronto Air Force, entirely probable he steps right into the NHL or starts a lot sooner than 25. Whats more, as two checking specialist of which Montreal & Toronto had depth, had he instead been at a Blackhawks, Rangers or Bruins, possibly even Detroit, mightve been a different story altogether. But the War interrupted his life as it did so many others & once untracked...... Financially, he wasnt really making a vast amount more in the NHL than he was with Ottawa, his hometown, and as he was more than capable of playing at a high level again after a year off to recuperate, then why not go back & play for the Habs?... because they had players of his kind in the system & he could wind up anywhere if he didnt make the team. So rather than risk it, his choice, not Montreals, plays for his hometown Ottawa Senators in the QSHL.

Ottawa in the Q was an exception. You mention Howard Riopelle. Ottawa had William "Legs" Fraser in goal and a few others who preferred the security of federal post WWII jobs and a minor league salary.

 

[Killion]

Ottawa in the Q was an exception. You mention Howard Riopelle. Ottawa had William "Legs" Fraser in goal and a few others who preferred the security of federal post WWII jobs and a minor league salary.

Yep. Leo Grevelle his former linemate in Montreal with the Canadiens also served a long tenure in the 'Q' and played with Rip in Ottawa. Bep Guidolin...... oh ya. You look up the rosters, same with the WHL, that was NHL talent but for a variety of reasons, happier, more content playing for Ottawa or Seattle or wherever.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If that's the standard then neither Harvey or Lidstrom could be argued as being one of the best D of all-time. It doesn't matter to me though and it only matters to you when it involves Lidstrom. Funny how that is, eh?

Well he isn't one of the best 5 forwards to ever play but he has been one of the best forwards in the NHL over a period of 10 years (with injured time holding him down a bit).

Really, that's the best you two can come up with?

Like seriously though, what part of Lidstrom is being held to THE very highest standard possible is not being understood?
Dats is not at that level and is not held to that extreme, Lidstrom is.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

It WAS more common. Jean Beliveau ring a bell?

So I name a bunch of players who did it, and you respond with one player who did not, and that's supposed to prove something? Besides that, Jean Beliveau was a few seasons later; when Harvey could have broken in, as Killion noted, the NHL was still recovering from the war. It should have been expected that more younger players would have been given a chance at that time.

1950/51 (Beliveau's first NHL game), there were eight 20-or-unders in the NHL. I count 10 in 1953/54 (Beliveau's first full year). It certainly wasn't always this many, but it seems to have been much more common that you assert.

Many players were very content to play in these Leagues that were just a hair under the NHL for talent and level of play in many cases.

Sorry, the Quebec senior league was "just a hair" under the NHL? That seems like a heck of a reach.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So I name a bunch of players who did it, and you respond with one player who did not, and that's supposed to prove something? Besides that, Jean Beliveau was a few seasons later; when Harvey could have broken in, as Killion noted, the NHL was still recovering from the war. It should have been expected that more younger players would have been given a chance at that time.

1950/51 (Beliveau's first NHL game), there were eight 20-or-unders in the NHL. I count 10 in 1953/54 (Beliveau's first full year). It certainly wasn't always this many, but it seems to have been much more common that you assert.


Sorry, the Quebec senior league was "just a hair" under the NHL? That seems like a heck of a reach.

Question - how many of those U-20s were on good teams (Montreal, Toronto, Detroit) and how many were on the doormats?

 

[Theokritos]

Players 20 and younger in the NHL

Data from hockeydb:

1946-1947
Montreal: 0
Toronto: 4 players (147 games)
Boston: 2 (79)
Detroit: 4 (138)
New York: 1 (1)
Chicago: 3 (85)
SUM:
14 players → 2.3 per team
450 games → 32.1 per player, 75.0 per team

1951-1952
Detroit: 3 (140)
Montreal: 6 (118)
Toronto: 6 (75)
Boston: 4 (114)
New York: 2 (40)
Chicago: 6 (40)
SUM:
27 players → 4.5 per team
527 games → 19.5 per player, 87.8 per team

1956-1957
Detroit: 3 (144)
Montreal: 5 (135)
Boston: 4 (31)
New York: 0
Toronto: 6 (214)
Chicago: 1 (64)
SUM:
19 players → 3.2 per team
588 games → 30.9 per player, 98.0 per team

1961-1962
Montreal: 0
Toronto: 5 (19)
Chicago: 1 (2)
New York: 5 (78)
Detroit: 6 (92)
Boston: 2 (70)
SUM:
19 players → 3.2 per team
261 games → 13.7 per player, 43.5 per team

1966-1967
Chicago: 0
Montreal: 3 (32)
Toronto: 4 (13)
New York: 0
Detroit: 4 (53)
Boston: 6 (103)
SUM:
17 players → 2.8 per team
201 games → 11.8 per player, 33.5 per team

Only players and games from the regular season counted. Team order after regular season ranking.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Question - how many of those U-20s were on good teams (Montreal, Toronto, Detroit) and how many were on the doormats?

I believe it is more common on the lower-ranked teams, and that's probably consistent with the early 90s as well. So if the claim is that it was less likely for a young player to make the Habs specifically before 1947/48, then that would have some legs I think. But that wasn't the argument being presented.

 

[danincanada]

Really, that's the best you two can come up with?

Like seriously though, what part of Lidstrom is being held to THE very highest standard possible is not being understood?
Dats is not at that level and is not held to that extreme, Lidstrom is.

I don't need to put much effort into it when I'm dealing with someone who wants to downgrade Lidstrom for crossing the Atlantic at 21 but won't do the same for Harvey even though he was in Montreal, and later the Canadiens affiliate in Buffalo, and didn't play with the Habs until he was 23. That speaks for itself.

Btw, Forsberg didn't come over until he was 21 also and Salming was 22. It wasn't unusual for Swedes before or after.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

This is where the eye test comes in. Is Keith as good as the early 1990s crop? Can we put him in the same sentence as Bourque? Or even Lidstrom? A fine defenseman for sure, a HHOFer in my book but from what we've seen with our eyes he falls behind a bit. Chara is probably the best defenseman in the last decade if you exclude Lidstrom. Not sure he has had a better career than Pronger. Everyone would agree that Pronger was well behind Robinson all-time. You can see these things just from their dominance on the ice.

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.

I agree with you on this, judge them by what happened on the ice. But there is very little Lidstrom could and did do that Bourque didn't do at least as good if not better. He did not have a better career at his peak or longevity-wise than Bourque.

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.

You still would have taken a 1990 Bourque on your team though.

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.

He doesn't have to prove he could do it in this era. As I have said the burden of proof is not on me to prove it. Duncan Keith is a great defenseman but you think he beats Harvey head to head?

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.

There is nothing wrong with the current crop at all. But this is the hockey history board, this is the best place to be objective. There are a lot of great defensemen today and I am not shortchanging them, but all eras are different. Some have defensemen that had higher peaks. If we take Chara, Keith and Weber as the best of the last 5 years do their peaks match up with Bourque, Chelios and Leetch/MacInnis from the early to mid 1990s? Was any of them as good as Bourque? No. Chelios? Hmmm, I don't think so, not quite. Go to other eras and none of them were as good as Park, Potvin or Robinson at their peak, let alone Orr. So I guess you can ask, was it harder to have a better season than Chara, Keith or Weber or just Potvin? This is a legitimate discussion and it might point to why we only see someone like Robinson with "just" two Norris trophies. Heck, everyone and their mother knows full well that Brad Park wins a ton of Norris trophies without Orr and the other two. You have to take everything into context here. It's not a knock to say the current crop doesn't have the top end talent of other eras, it's just what it is. Maybe in 10 years we see a shift the other way. But I still believe the best in the NHL is still a remarkable acheivement.

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

I personally have no problem putting Bourque 2nd all-time, slightly ahead of Harvey. It is awfully close between those two.

 

[Big Phil]

Man this is too easy here, so Harvey's NHL had other leagues with talent just a hair under the NHL and Lidstrom played in an NHL with basically all the talent in the world not just Canadian talent?

thanks again for making my argument here as to the OP.

BTW Harvey probably would be a Doughty like player today, no idea exactly how he would translate as not all stars would IMO.

Well that settles it. Harvey = Doughty. I have no issue with that. After all, Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun during the NHL playoffs considered Doughty the best player in the world. Of course, he's a writer and votes for the awards and didn't have Doughty among his top 5 in Norris voting...................but in two months Doughty really, really spiked up the ranks to best player in the free world according to him. What a jump.

Anyway, on a serious note, Harvey was an 11-time all-star you realize this right? 7 time Norris winner. 6 time Cup winner. Doughty has once been a 2nd team all-star in his career. This puts him behind Suter, Subban, Chara, Keith, Weber, Karlsson and pretty even with Letang for Norris voting in the last few years.

But Harvey who is a innovator and a trailblazer at the position wouldn't be above Doughty today?

 

[Killion]

But Harvey who is a innovator and a trailblazer at the position wouldn't be above Doughty today?

Thats the claim by the Member, yes. If entirely without merit, specious, I would have deleted the post rather than respond to it as I did. What the Poster is stating is that its his belief all things being equal that had Harvey come of age contemporaneously with Drew Doughty they'd have been on par with one another circa 90's & 00's, possibly Doughty better. From that perspective the reasoning neither irrational nor implausible. What it doesnt address however is that during the 50's & early 60's prior to Orr's arrival, Doug Harvey actually changed the way Defence was played & thus the game itself to some degree.

So if we remove Harvey from the equation entirely, what Defenceman mightve done the same that then influenced, enabled Orr to take those chances & risks as promoted by his amateur Coach in Parry Sound, former NHL'r Bucko MacDonald? Bill Barilko was a rushing D-Man but he vanished on a fishing trip. His replacement on the Blue~Line Tim Horton, a Rushing D~Man until a devastating bodycheck limited his speed & mobility. But if were' playing a "Fantasy Game" as it is, had Barilko not vanished or had Horton not been handicapped, perhaps they rather than Doug Harvey were the ones to change the way the positions played & the game... Replacement for Doug Harvey in the 50's & 60's. Fore-runners to Orr. That then when Harvey & Doughty were born in the same year, same modern up to date era, well, here we are yes? Equal to or Doughty better. Revisionism. Highly entertaining thought process. Its not history though, nor is it reality.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well that settles it. Harvey = Doughty. I have no issue with that. After all, Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun during the NHL playoffs considered Doughty the best player in the world. Of course, he's a writer and votes for the awards and didn't have Doughty among his top 5 in Norris voting...................but in two months Doughty really, really spiked up the ranks to best player in the free world according to him. What a jump.

Anyway, on a serious note, Harvey was an 11-time all-star you realize this right? 7 time Norris winner. 6 time Cup winner. Doughty has once been a 2nd team all-star in his career. This puts him behind Suter, Subban, Chara, Keith, Weber, Karlsson and pretty even with Letang for Norris voting in the last few years.

But Harvey who is a innovator and a trailblazer at the position wouldn't be above Doughty today?

See this is always the case a guys career versus a guy who just turned 24 last season.

Sorry but like I said above in the thread doughty is miles ahead of Harvey at the same age (heck Harvey didn't receive a single ballot in post season all star voting till age 27.

We all know how Harveys entire career turned out, in a 6 team league, on a stacked dynasty team and with much less competition for the Norris or post season all star votes every year.

doughty is miles ahead of Harvey in the same stages and time periods in their careers, both guys are very big Dmen who can dominate at both ends of the ice but neither are seen as offensive juggernauts but at least be fair in their comps will you, or is that too much to ask?

 

[Rhiessan71]

See this is always the case a guys career versus a guy who just turned 24 last season.

Sorry but like I said above in the thread doughty is miles ahead of Harvey Lidstrom at the same age (heck Harvey Lidstrom didn't receive a single ballot in post season all star voting till age 27 26.)

We all know how Harveys Lidstrom's entire career turned out, in a 6 22-30 team league, on a stacked dynasty team and with much less competition for the Norris or post season all star votes every year.

doughty is miles ahead of Harvey Lidstrom in the same stages and time periods in their careers, both guys are very big Dmen who can dominate at both ends of the ice but neither are seen as offensive juggernauts but at least be fair in their comps will you, or is that too much to ask?

 

[Big Phil]

Well played sir.

See this is always the case a guys career versus a guy who just turned 24 last season.

Sorry but like I said above in the thread doughty is miles ahead of Harvey at the same age (heck Harvey didn't receive a single ballot in post season all star voting till age 27.

We all know how Harveys entire career turned out, in a 6 team league, on a stacked dynasty team and with much less competition for the Norris or post season all star votes every year.

doughty is miles ahead of Harvey in the same stages and time periods in their careers, both guys are very big Dmen who can dominate at both ends of the ice but neither are seen as offensive juggernauts but at least be fair in their comps will you, or is that too much to ask?

I'm glad Doughty has only played on those crummy Kings teams his whole career...........

Alright fine, let's wait. We'll see how he turns out. I know myself I think it is ridiculous to compare him to the career of Harvey considering it would be hard to separate him from PK Subban style-wise so far in his career and not much better career-wise. If Doughty is going to ever get to the Harvey-level he has got stand out a bit more.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well played sir.



I'm glad Doughty has only played on those crummy Kings teams his whole career...........

Alright fine, let's wait. We'll see how he turns out. I know myself I think it is ridiculous to compare him to the career of Harvey considering it would be hard to separate him from PK Subban style-wise so far in his career and not much better career-wise. If Doughty is going to ever get to the Harvey-level he has got stand out a bit more.

See this is a bit of a problem though as Harvey only had to deal with Kelly for a short time in his career and the rest of his (all star level play) was against really weak competition in a 6 team league, he really didn't have to beat out a dozen or so guys in a 30 team league all worthy of gaining top 3 votes in any giving year depending on how their team does mostly.

In a 6 team league there are only 6 #1 dmen and playing on a dynasty in a 6 team league also really helps as well.

In a 30 team league with lots of elite talent the variance factor really comes into play and I doubt we are going to see any 5 time Norris winners going forward.

Of course time will tell on that last point.

Heck we can look to this year voting for the Norris and see that OEL in a very Norris worthy type of season placed only 17th and that exactly 50% of the 18 guys getting a 1,2,3 vote were non Canadians.

The Canadian field on it's own was pretty darn good last year as well.


http://www.hockey-reference.com/awards/voting-2014.html#norris

 

[Hardyvan123]

You are correct Doughty is greater than Harvey at the same stages of their careers, ie 6 years in and at the same age as well.

He is also ahead of Lidstrom.

Lidstrom was also ahead of Harvey at the same stages (and age) of their careers.....so?

 

[Big Phil]

See this is a bit of a problem though as Harvey only had to deal with Kelly for a short time in his career and the rest of his (all star level play) was against really weak competition in a 6 team league, he really didn't have to beat out a dozen or so guys in a 30 team league all worthy of gaining top 3 votes in any giving year depending on how their team does mostly.

In a 6 team league there are only 6 #1 dmen and playing on a dynasty in a 6 team league also really helps as well.

In a 30 team league with lots of elite talent the variance factor really comes into play and I doubt we are going to see any 5 time Norris winners going forward.

Of course time will tell on that last point.

Heck we can look to this year voting for the Norris and see that OEL in a very Norris worthy type of season placed only 17th and that exactly 50% of the 18 guys getting a 1,2,3 vote were non Canadians.

The Canadian filed on it's own was pretty darn good last year as well.

Are we really going to count the likes of Brent Seabrook and Jay Bouwmeester here? They finished 17th in Norris voting. They each had a 5th place vote. That's it. Were any of them a threat to Duncan Keith? No. In fact, you really only have to look at the top 6 if that. No one else had a season quite like Keith's. Or if you want to be generous, 7 of them.

The Norris finish went like this:
Keith - 1033
Chara - 667
Weber - 638
Suter - 351
Pietrangelo - 304
Doughty - 284
Karlsson - 70

After that it's Ryan McDonagh and Victor Hedman and Marc-Andre Vlasic and such. So considering how far Keith finished ahead of even Chara and Weber, is it really that far of a stretch to say that even Harvey in the original 6 had competition like this but won 7 times? Someone gave Victor Hedman one 1st place vote. Can we all agree that writer was probably linked to his mother? You can't base it on the fact that some silly writer saw something that didn't exist. I'm fine if Hedman is getting the odd 4th or 5th place vote. So really, was he a Norris threat? Or is it really just down to a handful like it is in almost every other era? Does Keith have to worry about Andrei Markov or Mark Giordano? Nope, not anymore than Harvey had to worry about Doug Mohns. The bottom line is more teams, more players doesn't always = harder to win. I've seen times when it was more of a logjam and I think I've spoken about those eras a lot on this thread. In the last 10 years, there hasn't been quite that logjam.

You also mentioned that going forward you don't see someone win the Norris 5 times in a 30 team league? Okay, your opinion, that's fine. But what about someone that wins it 7 times in a 30 team league including 3 times in a row twice? Or someone that wins it 5 times in a 21-26 team league?

Put it this way, a true all-time great will stand out and win a bunch of trophies if they are truly an all-time great regardless of era. Just ask:

Harvey - 7 Norris in 8 years
Orr - 8 straight Norris
Bourque - 5 Norris (4 in 5 years)
Lidstrom - 7 Norris (3 in a row twice)

A great one stands out regardless of era. This one, or the last one. Sometimes we rank the difficulty and the dominance of the Norris winner each year but at the end of the day history has proven it isn't any harder to win the Norris now than 60 years ago. You just need the right guy to do it.

 

[danincanada]

This is where the eye test comes in. Is Keith as good as the early 1990s crop? Can we put him in the same sentence as Bourque? Or even Lidstrom? A fine defenseman for sure, a HHOFer in my book but from what we've seen with our eyes he falls behind a bit. Chara is probably the best defenseman in the last decade if you exclude Lidstrom. Not sure he has had a better career than Pronger. Everyone would agree that Pronger was well behind Robinson all-time. You can see these things just from their dominance on the ice.

The good old “eye testâ€. A highly subjective form of comparison, especially when one is comparing across different eras with a completely different composition of players in the league. For the record, I do agree Bourque and Lidstrom were better than Keith but at his best he would be in the mix with that 90’s group and early ‘00’s group. He covers the ice so well, he’s a big game player, and his offensive game would probably be a lot more apparent in the early 90’s. Actually I feel the same way about Weber and Doughty. It would be interesting to see how their games would translate to a more open style of play because they all have the skills to take advantage of it.

I think Chara, Pronger, and Robinson are all comparable in their primes. Dominant big men who could play in any situation and were huge in helping their teams win. Unfortunately for Pronger his career got cut short when he probably still had a few elite years left. I don’t like Pronger but he was an extremely dominant defenseman and with a few more elite years he’d be even more comparable to Robinson. I don’t see him as being “well behind†Robinson in this regard, even in a simple peer to peer comparison.

I agree with you on this, judge them by what happened on the ice. But there is very little Lidstrom could and did do that Bourque didn't do at least as good if not better. He did not have a better career at his peak or longevity-wise than Bourque.

Lidstrom was better defensively. He was defense-first so he didn’t take the risks Bourque did but even with that, he simply got beat less often than Bourque. The “May Day†goal is a prime example. Lidstrom’s peak is very underrated around here. Again, a Norris and CS in the same hockey year is very impressive. He helped shut down Lindros in ’97 and then Crosby in ’08 and ’09 so longevity was not an issue. His longevity was better than Harvey’s but longevity never gets brought up when it comes to Doug.

You still would have taken a 1990 Bourque on your team though.

Sure, I would take ’90 Bourque on my team any day. For the ’02 Wings I wouldn’t take him over Lidstrom though. I mean, it worked out and they won the Cup and Lidstrom won the CS so why would I change to another defender? It may not work out as well and Lidstrom was a better shutdown guy, which Detroit needed against the Avs. Bruins fans would probably say they’d rather have ’90 Bourque on their team instead of Lidstrom so we’re in the same boat.

He doesn't have to prove he could do it in this era. As I have said the burden of proof is not on me to prove it. Duncan Keith is a great defenseman but you think he beats Harvey head to head?

You can say whatever you want but where’s the logic that says that the burden of proof is on me but not you? I could say the same thing but it doesn’t make it true. Here we go - the burden of proof is on you to prove Harvey could beat Keith for the Norris. It’s not on me because we already know Keith has won two Norris’ in the current era. See how easy that is?

I think Keith could beat Harvey head to head and vice versa. I don’t pretend to know though. That’s what you’re trying to do even though there are a plethora of unknowns and they played in completely different eras.

There is nothing wrong with the current crop at all. But this is the hockey history board, this is the best place to be objective. There are a lot of great defensemen today and I am not shortchanging them, but all eras are different. Some have defensemen that had higher peaks. If we take Chara, Keith and Weber as the best of the last 5 years do their peaks match up with Bourque, Chelios and Leetch/MacInnis from the early to mid 1990s? Was any of them as good as Bourque? No. Chelios? Hmmm, I don't think so, not quite. Go to other eras and none of them were as good as Park, Potvin or Robinson at their peak, let alone Orr. So I guess you can ask, was it harder to have a better season than Chara, Keith or Weber or just Potvin? This is a legitimate discussion and it might point to why we only see someone like Robinson with "just" two Norris trophies. Heck, everyone and their mother knows full well that Brad Park wins a ton of Norris trophies without Orr and the other two. You have to take everything into context here. It's not a knock to say the current crop doesn't have the top end talent of other eras, it's just what it is. Maybe in 10 years we see a shift the other way. But I still believe the best in the NHL is still a remarkable acheivement.

This is the best place to be objective? This is where players from the O6, which is really only the pre-baby boom Canadian talent pool, are generally weighed more heavily and held on a higher pedestal than the most current era, which comes from an international array of countries and developmental programs, including a far more populated Canada. I don’t see anything objective about that. I see a lot of “they don’t make ‘em like they used to†mentalities with little proof or evidence that it’s actually the case.

I personally have no problem putting Bourque 2nd all-time, slightly ahead of Harvey. It is awfully close between those two.

But Lidstrom is not close? If not then look at the career accomplishments of all 3 and tell me how that would be logically consistent. Lidstrom and Harvey mirror each other in so many ways yet he gets downgraded because he is the more recent player.

 

[Sens Rule]

The good old “eye test”. A highly subjective form of comparison, especially when one is comparing across different eras with a completely different composition of players in the league. For the record, I do agree Bourque and Lidstrom were better than Keith but at his best he would be in the mix with that 90’s group and early ‘00’s group. He covers the ice so well, he’s a big game player, and his offensive game would probably be a lot more apparent in the early 90’s. Actually I feel the same way about Weber and Doughty. It would be interesting to see how their games would translate to a more open style of play because they all have the skills to take advantage of it.

I think Chara, Pronger, and Robinson are all comparable in their primes. Dominant big men who could play in any situation and were huge in helping their teams win. Unfortunately for Pronger his career got cut short when he probably still had a few elite years left. I don’t like Pronger but he was an extremely dominant defenseman and with a few more elite years he’d be even more comparable to Robinson. I don’t see him as being “well behind” Robinson in this regard, even in a simple peer to peer comparison.



Lidstrom was better defensively. He was defense-first so he didn’t take the risks Bourque did but even with that, he simply got beat less often than Bourque. The “May Day” goal is a prime example. Lidstrom’s peak is very underrated around here. Again, a Norris and CS in the same hockey year is very impressive. He helped shut down Lindros in ’97 and then Crosby in ’08 and ’09 so longevity was not an issue. His longevity was better than Harvey’s but longevity never gets brought up when it comes to Doug.



Sure, I would take ’90 Bourque on my team any day. For the ’02 Wings I wouldn’t take him over Lidstrom though. I mean, it worked out and they won the Cup and Lidstrom won the CS so why would I change to another defender? It may not work out as well and Lidstrom was a better shutdown guy, which Detroit needed against the Avs. Bruins fans would probably say they’d rather have ’90 Bourque on their team instead of Lidstrom so we’re in the same boat.



You can say whatever you want but where’s the logic that says that the burden of proof is on me but not you? I could say the same thing but it doesn’t make it true. Here we go - the burden of proof is on you to prove Harvey could beat Keith for the Norris. It’s not on me because we already know Keith has won two Norris’ in the current era. See how easy that is?

I think Keith could beat Harvey head to head and vice versa. I don’t pretend to know though. That’s what you’re trying to do even though there are a plethora of unknowns and they played in completely different eras.



This is the best place to be objective? This is where players from the O6, which is really only the pre-baby boom Canadian talent pool, are generally weighed more heavily and held on a higher pedestal than the most current era, which comes from an international array of countries and developmental programs, including a far more populated Canada. I don’t see anything objective about that. I see a lot of “they don’t make ‘em like they used to” mentalities with little proof or evidence that it’s actually the case.



But Lidstrom is not close? If not then look at the career accomplishments of all 3 and tell me how that would be logically consistent. Lidstrom and Harvey mirror each other in so many ways yet he gets downgraded because he is the more recent player.

I don't think Keith is particularly special. He is just on a great team. Karlsson, Weber, Doughty are better now and will be better in the future. Old Lidstrom his last few years was easily better. Keith can't touch the SECONDARY 80's/early 90's D at their best... MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, Langway etc. He is nothing compared to Chelios, Coffey, Bourque at their best. That is not even considering the later D like Pronger and Niedermeyer, or 70's stars Robinson and Potvin in the early 80's. Keith just isn't that good at his very best.. he doesn't touch these D's AVERAGE years, heck he doesn't touch most of these guys 8th or 10th best years. Neither of his BEST Norris winning year's are better then ANY year of Bourque's career. Not one.

If Karlsson isn't on a horrible team playing through a healing achilles, or if Doughty played the regular season like he does in the Olympics and playoffs, or if Weber was on an actual playoff team they crush Keith. The fact Keith has 2 Norris trophies is a sign that the competition at D is weak now. Really weak historically. Going on about Kelly and Harvey being the only elite defencemen in the 50's... is missing the point that THERE ARE NO SUPER-ELITE D now. NONE. Karlsson and Doughty could be and may be HHOF super-elite top dozen or so all-time D as their careers draw on. They are young. But Keith is not a top 20 D all-time, or probably not a top 25 D either, maybe not a top 30 D, Possibly not even top 40.... and he never will be.

How is Lidstrom underrated around here? Only if you think he is the 2nd best ever WITHOUT DISCUSSION is he underrated. Otherwise everyone rates him highly.

Using Keith to further your argument is folly. Saying he is better then Harvey is ridiculous.

Henrik Sedin has won the scoring race, Peter Bondra led the NHL in goals... so did Rick Nash. Doesn't mean any of them are elite all-time greats. Just like Keith isn't. Sometimes you have Bossy and Kurri and Gretzky topping the goal scoring race... and sometimes Tkachuk or Bondra. There are ebbs and flows to talent levels at different positions. 21 straight years 99,66 or Jagr led the NHL in scoring... then it was a new guy most every year, St. Louis, Iginla. Iginla is a great player... and a great goal scorer... but he should not really be leading the NHL in points! Then you have a bunch of super-elite talent's after that in Crosby and Malkin and Ovechkin. Things ebb and flow. The late 70's to early 90's had a SICK number of elite, all-time great defencemen. It just did. Today's top D can not compare despite having a bigger talent pool to pick from. Pierre Pilote has a few Norris trophies because he was elite at the right time. Park has none because although he was elite he was elite versus Prime Orr and Potvin. No chance. Stevens has none. MacInnis has one.. and he won it in his late 30's. Bourque in the right era has a dozen Norris trophies. Yzerman might have a few Ross or Hart trophies if he is not up against freaking 99 and 66 his whole career. Trophies can mean very, very little. Add in Goaltending... all through the 80's it was mostly a different goalie every year. Hextall, Liut, Ranford etc. Then Roy comes along and Brodeur and Hasek. Belfour is the 4th best goalie of an era, where he would have been the best of an era 10 years earlier. Fuhr was the king of the goalies and in hindsight was not really that elite, still great but not as good as he seemed at the time. For 15 years you had Sawchuk, Plante and Hall.... then no one really comparable until Parent and Dryden. Ebbs and flows. Elite talent goes up and down at every position. It is not about that there are 2 million people in the world playing organized hockey and there used to be 600,000... those gross numbers do not tell the story of the best 10 or 20 players in the world. Then it is the outliers that tell the story and if you are talking the top 0.0001% of group... it doesn't act like a simple bell curve.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't think Keith is particularly special. He is just on a great team. Karlsson, Weber, Doughty are better now and will be better in the future. Old Lidstrom his last few years was easily better. Keith can't touch the SECONDARY 80's/early 90's D at their best... MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens, Langway etc. He is nothing compared to Chelios, Coffey, Bourque at their best. That is not even considering the later D like Pronger and Niedermeyer, or 70's stars Robinson and Potvin in the early 80's. Keith just isn't that good at his very best.. he doesn't touch these D's AVERAGE years, heck he doesn't touch most of these guys 8th or 10th best years. Neither of his BEST Norris winning year's are better then ANY year of Bourque's career. Not one.

If Karlsson isn't on a horrible team playing through a healing achilles, or if Doughty played the regular season like he does in the Olympics and playoffs, or if Weber was on an actual playoff team they crush Keith. The fact Keith has 2 Norris trophies is a sign that the competition at D is weak now. Really weak historically. Going on about Kelly and Harvey being the only elite defencemen in the 50's... is missing the point that THERE ARE NO SUPER-ELITE D now. NONE. Karlsson and Doughty could be and may be HHOF super-elite top dozen or so all-time D as their careers draw on. They are young. But Keith is not a top 20 D all-time, or probably not a top 25 D either, maybe not a top 30 D, Possibly not even top 40.... and he never will be.

How is Lidstrom underrated around here? Only if you think he is the 2nd best ever WITHOUT DISCUSSION is he underrated. Otherwise everyone rates him highly.

Using Keith to further your argument is folly. Saying he is better then Harvey is ridiculous.

this evalution of Keith isn't very accurate is it?

saying that he can't touch in his best years (2 Norris trophies and was also Conn Smythe worthy 2 years as well) the other guys 8,9 10th best years doesn't really hold the test if you apply it does it?

I get it that guys prefer the early mid 90's Dmen but the the degree of exaggeration that comes up at times is mind boggling.

a lot of it seems to be stat driven, Dmen scored more back then as a group than they do now and more competition and lower scoring stats somehow come out as being less competitive or not as a great an era for Dmen which simply doesn't pass that old "eye test"

 

[Rhiessan71]

The good old “eye testâ€. A highly subjective form of comparison, especially when one is comparing across different eras with a completely different composition of players in the league. For the record, I do agree Bourque and Lidstrom were better than Keith but at his best he would be in the mix with that 90’s group and early ‘00’s group. He covers the ice so well, he’s a big game player, and his offensive game would probably be a lot more apparent in the early 90’s. Actually I feel the same way about Weber and Doughty. It would be interesting to see how their games would translate to a more open style of play because they all have the skills to take advantage of it.

When the "Eye Test" is mentioned, it's not as literally as you are making out here.
When you say Keith would be "in the mix", I call bull****.
We SAW what Chelios was like and how he did in his peak/prime and we SAW what Chelios was like and how he did in his 40's.
The only way Chelios was able to beat out Bourque for a Norris back then was either when Bourque was injured for a chunk of said season or to have an absolute peak season which still barely got him the Norris nod over a healthy Bourque.
Fast forward to a 40 year old Chelios, quite obviously a far cry from a 30-34 year old Chelios and there he is giving Lidstrom a close run for the Norris.
Same goes for MacInnis, while I agree Mac was a better all-around player in the late 90's/early 2000's, he was NOT a better player than he was in his prime and in his prime, he couldn't even take home a Norris home as one of only five Dmen to ever crack the 100 point mark.
So then we have Keith losing a Norris to a Lidstrom past his peak/prime who had clearly lost a step.
A peak Lidstrom is a candidate to at least be "in the mix" for the Norris in the early 90's, Keith is not.
Suffice to say, the "Eye Test" is about a lot more than simply having watched said player play.

Lidstrom was better defensively. He was defense-first so he didn’t take the risks Bourque did but even with that, he simply got beat less often than Bourque. The “May Day†goal is a prime example. Lidstrom’s peak is very underrated around here. Again, a Norris and CS in the same hockey year is very impressive. He helped shut down Lindros in ’97 and then Crosby in ’08 and ’09 so longevity was not an issue. His longevity was better than Harvey’s but longevity never gets brought up when it comes to Doug.

Lidstrom was better on a purely defensive level BUT he was also afforded that luxury and as impressive as Lidstrom's Norris and CS in the same year was, one can not forget that it was Chelios at 40 on his own team pushing him for that Norris and the CS was clearly Yzerman's until his knee gave out, almost still was despite it.
It's definitely not in the same class as Orr's Norris/CS years where it wasn't even remotely in question.

Sure, I would take ’90 Bourque on my team any day. For the ’02 Wings I wouldn’t take him over Lidstrom though. I mean, it worked out and they won the Cup and Lidstrom won the CS so why would I change to another defender? It may not work out as well and Lidstrom was a better shutdown guy, which Detroit needed against the Avs. Bruins fans would probably say they’d rather have ’90 Bourque on their team instead of Lidstrom so we’re in the same boat.

You keep saying Lidstrom was a better pure shutdown guy than Bourque but there is actually nothing to back that up. In fact, any numbers available still show that Bourque's puck possession skills and ability to control the puck did more to limit opposing players than Lidstrom's pure one on one skills did.
Definitely a case where your "eye test" of watching Lidstrom poke checking opposing players is getting in the way of the actual results.

You can say whatever you want but where’s the logic that says that the burden of proof is on me but not you? I could say the same thing but it doesn’t make it true. Here we go - the burden of proof is on you to prove Harvey could beat Keith for the Norris. It’s not on me because we already know Keith has won two Norris’ in the current era. See how easy that is?

I think Keith could beat Harvey head to head and vice versa. I don’t pretend to know though. That’s what you’re trying to do even though there are a plethora of unknowns and they played in completely different eras.

Except we know how Harvey stcks up against Pilote and we know how Pilote stacks against Orr and we know how Orr stacks against Potvin/Robinson/Park and we know how Bourque stacks against them and so on and so on right to this day.

But Lidstrom is not close? If not then look at the career accomplishments of all 3 and tell me how that would be logically consistent. Lidstrom and Harvey mirror each other in so many ways yet he gets downgraded because he is the more recent player.

No, he gets downgraded (if you can even call it that when he's still generally ranked in the top-5 all-time heh) vs Bourque because he simply wasn't as good as Bourque all around nor was he as good for as long and gets "downgraded" vs Harvey because they are so similar that the big difference in game/puck control for Harvey makes a gap and that Harvey changed the game defensively like no one else in history gives him more than just a slight edge.

Again, there's a reason that the two players BY FAR who changed and defined the position as we know it today are #1 and #2.
Just because you seem to be one of the very few people who can't or won't give respect for this, is not my problem.

 

[danincanada]

When the "Eye Test" is mentioned, it's not as literally as you are making out here.
When you say Keith would be "in the mix", I call bull****.
We SAW what Chelios was like and how he did in his peak/prime and we SAW what Chelios was like and how he did in his 40's.
The only way Chelios was able to beat out Bourque for a Norris back then was either when Bourque was injured for a chunk of said season or to have an absolute peak season which still barely got him the Norris nod over a healthy Bourque.
Fast forward to a 40 year old Chelios, quite obviously a far cry from a 30-34 year old Chelios and there he is giving Lidstrom a close run for the Norris.
Same goes for MacInnis, while I agree Mac was a better all-around player in the late 90's/early 2000's, he was NOT a better player than he was in his prime and in his prime, he couldn't even take home a Norris home as one of only five Dmen to ever crack the 100 point mark.
So then we have Keith losing a Norris to a Lidstrom past his peak/prime who had clearly lost a step.
A peak Lidstrom is a candidate to at least be "in the mix" for the Norris in the early 90's, Keith is not.
Suffice to say, the "Eye Test" is about a lot more than simply having watched said player play.

The problem, of course, is that none of your comparisons are using all the players at their very best. It's impossible but it would be far better than any eye test, which has obvious flaws. There are a lot of assumptions based on age. We've seen that all-time defenders such as Bourque, MacInnis, Chelios, and Lidstrom can have terrific seasons at, or around, 40. They also get a lot of fanfare and Norris votes for simply being great at that age, along with having "paid their dues".

Keith did beat a 39 year old Lidstrom for the Norris so he should get credit for that. If he wouldn't be in the mix in the early 90's then where would he sit? What level, and which player, does he compare with in your opinion? He has only won Norris' when at his very best so use that for the 90's as well.

Bolded is not really true. Chelios outright won the Norris in '92-'93. Bourque played 78 games but Chelios received 33 first place votes to Bourque's 6. Voting totals were Chelios 201, Bourque 97, Murphy 93...followed by Hatcher, Housley, and Iafrate. Obviously it was far deeper that season than we have now.

Lidstrom was better on a purely defensive level BUT he was also afforded that luxury and as impressive as Lidstrom's Norris and CS in the same year was, one can not forget that it was Chelios at 40 on his own team pushing him for that Norris and the CS was clearly Yzerman's until his knee gave out, almost still was despite it.
It's definitely not in the same class as Orr's Norris/CS years where it wasn't even remotely in question.

That's right, downgrade Lidstrom's Norris and CS as much as possible. No, it wasn't like Orr's but Bourque and Harvey weren't like Orr either.

You keep saying Lidstrom was a better pure shutdown guy than Bourque but there is actually nothing to back that up. In fact, any numbers available still show that Bourque's puck possession skills and ability to control the puck did more to limit opposing players than Lidstrom's pure one on one skills did.
Definitely a case where your "eye test" of watching Lidstrom poke checking opposing players is getting in the way of the actual results.

Bowman and Babcock used Lidstrom as their shutdown guy over many years with great success, including 4 Cups. That's all I need to know and that backs it up. Dispute it if you wish. He did it during the season but the playoffs is where it was really needed because they weren't single games, it was a steady diet of Lidstrom for the other teams top player(s) each series. It was an awesome display and I never saw Bourque play at those levels defensively.

Except we know how Harvey stcks up against Pilote and we know how Pilote stacks against Orr and we know how Orr stacks against Potvin/Robinson/Park and we know how Bourque stacks against them and so on and so on right to this day.

Again, these guys were usually at different stages of their careers so it's not a proven formula.

Again, there's a reason that the two players BY FAR who changed and defined the position as we know it today are #1 and #2.
Just because you seem to be one of the very few people who can't or won't give respect for this, is not my problem.

I give respect but I won't acknowledge it as trumping everything else. I want to know who was better. You're talking about something else. Les Paul innovated the guitar greatly and earlier but he couldn't quite play it like Hendrix or Clapton. I don't usually like music analogies but this one kind of works.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The problem, of course, is that none of your comparisons are using all the players at their very best. It's impossible but it would be far better than any eye test, which has obvious flaws. There are a lot of assumptions based on age. We've seen that all-time defenders such as Bourque, MacInnis, Chelios, and Lidstrom can have terrific seasons at, or around, 40. They also get a lot of fanfare and Norris votes for simply being great at that age, along with having "paid their dues".

Keith did beat a 39 year old Lidstrom for the Norris so he should get credit for that. If he wouldn't be in the mix in the early 90's then where would he sit? What level, and which player, does he compare with in your opinion? He has only won Norris' when at his very best so use that for the 90's as well.

It doesn't matter what level of season said player was having, we know what that players upper seasons were and can easily judge other seasons accordingly.
And no matter how much you wanna try and spin Lidstrom or MacInnis at 39 or Bourque at 40, the FACT still remains that no matter well they played at those ages, THEY STILL WEREN'T AS GOOD AS THEY WERE AT 30!

Bolded is not really true. Chelios outright won the Norris in '92-'93. Bourque played 78 games but Chelios received 33 first place votes to Bourque's 6. Voting totals were Chelios 201, Bourque 97, Murphy 93...followed by Hatcher, Housley, and Iafrate. Obviously it was far deeper that season than we have now.

And it was Chelios' peak season in the League. That's what it took to beat Bourque in an off year.
An off year for Lidstrom still got him a Norris, 5 in fact by my count.

That's right, downgrade Lidstrom's Norris and CS as much as possible. No, it wasn't like Orr's but Bourque and Harvey weren't like Orr either.

More like Orr than Lidstrom was. All 3 of those players handled the puck and controlled a game many times more often and better than Lidstrom did.

Bowman and Babcock used Lidstrom as their shutdown guy over many years with great success, including 4 Cups. That's all I need to know and that backs it up. Dispute it if you wish. He did it during the season but the playoffs is where it was really needed because they weren't single games, it was a steady diet of Lidstrom for the other teams top player(s) each series. It was an awesome display and I never saw Bourque play at those levels defensively.

You never saw it because you just didn't see Bourque play much. That's more than obvious at this point and no amount of claiming otherwise on your part is going change my opinion on that.

Again, these guys were usually at different stages of their careers so it's not a proven formula.

Answered above but again, we know what said players peak seasons were and can easily judge other seasons by them accordingly.
We saw how close a 40 year old Chelios was to a 32 year old Lidstrom and we know exactly where a 34 year old Chelios stands vs a 40 year old Chelios.
It's not rocket science to do the comparisons.

I give respect but I won't acknowledge it as trumping everything else. I want to know who was better. You're talking about something else. Les Paul innovated the guitar greatly and earlier but he couldn't quite play it like Hendrix or Clapton. I don't usually like music analogies but this one kind of works.

Except IF all you were actually interested in was who was purely THE best player, then Lidstrom isn't even in the top-10 for Dmen all-time.
Potvin for example would most likely be my #3 or maybe even #2 Dman all-time for purely being the best ever to play/peak.
And that's a terrible analogy as we're talking the people playing the guitar, not the people making them.
And in this case, Harvey = Hendrix anyway.