Who would still be a star?

[Big Phil]

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.

My question is, why are you just so sure of yourself that Harvey is just an ordinary run of the mill defenseman today? I like Duncan Keith, but I am not the only one on here telling you that his "highs" are different than the highs of other great defensemen. You know what, Keith's career is carving out to be one like Niedermayer. Keith will be in the HHOF in my opinion, but in many ways his career is like Niedermayer's. Nothing wrong with that but we can agree Niedermayer isn't Lidstrom right? And so on and so forth.

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.

Robinson had the staying power, that is what puts him higher than Pronger. You have to reward players for being able to be elite for a long time. Robinson's two Norris seasons are similar to Pronger's 2000 season as well.

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.

Harvey actually had pretty good longevity. Especially for that era where the average amount of years in the league was less than today. I am just saying the best longevity as an elite defenseman I have ever seen is Bourque.

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.

Keith is a great defenseman, but you are comparing him to a legend. Not really fair at this point. But yeah, Harvey was the engine that drove the bus on those Habs teams. He was the glue, or maybe Beliveau. But either way, he controlled the pace of the game better than Keith. Keith is not a "special" Norris trophy winner by any means.

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.

The current era is not done yet. This is why a bygone era always wins. I will say though, I can think of some great defensemen that the current crop is going to have a heck of a time ever catching. In fact, some never will. It's sort of like comparing Crosby to Gretzky. After the 3rd or 4th season Crosby was just too far behind the pace of Gretzky at the same age. He'll never be in the same mix. Someone like Bourque has already made it impossible for the current crop to ever catch.

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.

This is where I think you get things wrong, because Lidstrom is certainly an all-time great. There isn't a monumental gap between Bourque and Lidstrom for example but I do think there is enough separation to say Bourque was superior. For me it looks like this:

Orr
..........
..........
Bourque/Harvey
..............
Shore/Lidstrom
...............
Potvin
Robinson
Kelly
Coffey
Chelios

It is hard to rank Shore but he fits in there somewhere. Lidstrom wins on longevity here. Potvin was done at 35, literally. Coffey for all intents and purposes had his last great year in 1996. Robinson was steady and good in the latter part of the 1980s, but a notch below the elite. Kelly became a forward in 1960. Chelios played forever as well, but had less great seasons. So career-wise that's how a look at it with those gaps in there. Lidstrom beats Potvin based on his longevity. There is no way Lidstrom was superior to Potvin peak vs. peak either, but since he did so much after 35 he is above him all-time in my opinion.

See, what's wrong with this list? It isn't as if Lidstrom never gets his due around here. But look at the freaking names he's competing with. Somewhere along the way you're going to get put down a notch.

 

[Sentinel]

If Harvey = Hendrix, Lidstrom = Malmsteen. Who can play circles around Jimmy.

 

[BraveCanadian]

If Harvey = Hendrix, Lidstrom = Malmsteen. Who can play circles around Jimmy.

There is so much wrong with this comparison I don't even know where to begin.

Lidstrom, while very technically proficient like Malmsteen is as a guitar player, actually understood efficiency. Malmsteen just plays a lot of show off garbage for nothing gained.

Definitely picking Harvey/Hendrix in this poll.

Then again I'm a mediocre old school blues/rock hack guitar player.. where the space in the middle is sometimes as important as the notes around it.

 

[Sentinel]

That's just taste speaking. I prefer Malmsteen's neoclassical style by far. His technical superiority to Hendrix is also undeniable. You are right that he was much flashier than Lidstrom.

 

[danincanada]

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!

They weren't as far off as you make them out to be either.

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.

Now it was Chelios' peak season? Hehe, first you claimed Chelios always narrowly beat Bourque, which wasn't true, so now it's time to make a different claim instead.

Lidstrom had off years for 5 of his Norris'? Wow, you have impossible standards for him. I watched a player who rarely took penalties, rarely made mistakes, and dominated without even being physical, and his teams finished near the top of the standings. I don't see how any of those seasons could be considered "off years" by anyone but you.

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.

Yup, that's why Harvey falls behind in the offensive comparisons I brought up. You claim he changed the game and may have been better than Orr in puck control but then say Orr had to come along and break down that barrier. You have made no sense and you continue to make no sense.

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.

I saw Bourque's heroics in the late 80's and early 90's. I was a Wings/Pens fan living in Toronto so I watched Wings/Pens games on satellite and Leafs games on local TV, along with most HNIC games. On top of that I always watched the playoffs. I watched way too much hockey back then. I wasn't a Bruins fan but you aren't either so I probably saw as much of Bourque as you did from about '87 on.

While we're at it, how many games have you seen Harvey play? and how did you watch them?

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.

That's your problem, you think you know but you actually don't.

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.

Not even top 10? You underrate Lidstrom so badly it takes all credibility from you in this topic. Potvin was great but he and Lidstrom are comparable. Both were the top dmen in the league for an extended period, and both were # 1 dmen in 4 Cup runs. Lidstrom just had a longer career and had his success spread out more.

Les Paul also played the guitar and was lauded for that. He also helped innovate guitars by making them but that doesn't mean peolple say he was better than Hendrix. That's what you're trying to do with Harvey. Even if he wasn't better than Lidstrom you want to put him there for innovation.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If Harvey = Hendrix, Lidstrom = Malmsteen. Who can play circles around Jimmy.

Harvey = Hendrix because Jimmy went against the grain; used a right-handed guitar left-handed and played heavy rifts with lots of distortion.

Harvey played the right side left-handed, was a passive, positional defender who "played" with the puck in his own zone at a time when Dmen were supposed to aggressively attack anything that crossed the blueline and shovel the puck to their wingers the second they got a hold of it.

 

[Sentinel]

Yet Malmsteen still has better chops. And Lidstrom was a better defenseman than both Harvey and Bourque.

 

[Big Phil]

That's your problem, you think you know but you actually don't.

I'm not trying to barge into the discussion you guys are having because you and I have our own back and forth debate going so I'll let Rhiessan71 respond to you except I will say he has a strong point on this, which is what I've been saying for quite a while and others can back this story. Chelios and Bourque were #1-2 in Norris voting in 1996. Chelios won by a whisker with 408-403 in votes. Bourque actually had more 1st place votes. It really came down to these two, despite a great season by Leetch as well as Vladdy.

In 2002 Lidstrom wins the Norris Trophy with Chelios finishing 2nd. No doubt Chelios wasn't the same player by now but he had one less first place vote over Lidstrom and Lidstrom only won by 472-431 votes. No doubt, Lidstrom wins the Norris and rightfully so.

The problem is, Lidstrom straight in his prime was losing the Norris to older guys like MacInnis in 1999. Bourque actually finished 3rd that year, and this was far from the same Ray Bourque. I'll give you the fact that Lidstrom got a bit better after 1999 and a little more seasoned, but if we are going to take that into effect, we have to realize that Bourque himself was not the same player in 1999 anymore. He wasn't 1990 Bourque.

However, 1990 Bourque managed to beat a prime MacInnis. In fact it was a unanimous vote. Bourque had all the first place votes. Coffey had a great year, MacInnis had a great year, Wilson actually had a peak year right at the end. Chelios was there. In 1991 he did pretty much the same thing except MacInnis was closer to him this time. Behind him were MacInnis, Leetch, Chelios and Coffey. That rounded out the top 5. And it went on like this for a few years.

So if Bourque is competing, and sometimes beating, the defensemen of this caliber year in and year out doesn't that mean something when a 1999 Lidstrom couldn't beat a 1999 MacInnis? While Bourque in his prime beat MacInnis in his prime with ease?

If that doesn't tell you that Bourque at his peak trumps Lidstrom at his peak (something I never needed documents to prove but it helped anyway) then what else do you need? There is no shame in never hitting the same level Ray Bourque did. Few did. Not sure why this is an issue.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey

Harvey = Hendrix because Jimmy went against the grain; used a right-handed guitar left-handed and played heavy rifts with lots of distortion.

Harvey played the right side left-handed, was a passive, positional defender who "played" with the puck in his own zone at a time when Dmen were supposed to aggressively attack anything that crossed the blueline and shovel the puck to their wingers the second they got a hold of it.

Doug Harvey simply refused to make the first move. Passive would not fit someone who fought Fern Flaman and Lou Fontinato twice or a player who twice topped 100 PIMs.

 

[danincanada]

My question is, why are you just so sure of yourself that Harvey is just an ordinary run of the mill defenseman today? I like Duncan Keith, but I am not the only one on here telling you that his "highs" are different than the highs of other great defensemen. You know what, Keith's career is carving out to be one like Niedermayer. Keith will be in the HHOF in my opinion, but in many ways his career is like Niedermayer's. Nothing wrong with that but we can agree Niedermayer isn't Lidstrom right? And so on and so forth.

I'm as sure that Harvey would be run of the mill today as you are that Keith wouldn't even make an AHL team back in the O6. We both made those claims so we'd better stand behind them. Oh wait, neither of us made those claims...

Keith has already been a # 1 defenseman on two Cup winners and won 2 Norris'. I think he's a little ahead of Niedermayer at the same age and still has time to further that. Both Niedermayer and Keith were great defenseman when at their best but were both behind Lidstrom. We can agree on that but I also think Keith would be one of those elite guys in any other era. You're simply underrating how good todays elite guys are.

Robinson had the staying power, that is what puts him higher than Pronger. You have to reward players for being able to be elite for a long time. Robinson's two Norris seasons are similar to Pronger's 2000 season as well.

Pronger would have had similar "staying power" or longevity if he didn't suffer a career ending injury. Like I said, Pronger was not "well behind" Robinson at all. Both were dominant and elite for a long time.

Keith is a great defenseman, but you are comparing him to a legend. Not really fair at this point. But yeah, Harvey was the engine that drove the bus on those Habs teams. He was the glue, or maybe Beliveau. But either way, he controlled the pace of the game better than Keith. Keith is not a "special" Norris trophy winner by any means.

It's not fair at all because Harvey has been labelled a legend for dominating a league of Canadians pre-baby boom. In reality he and Keith could be extremely comparable but you would never know if from your "eye test". I'm not saying it's a fact, I just know neither of us are sure what the truth is.

Also, Keith is what drives the Black Hawks defense core and he's right there with Toews and Kane as team MVP so it's really not that different from Harvey.

The current era is not done yet. This is why a bygone era always wins. I will say though, I can think of some great defensemen that the current crop is going to have a heck of a time ever catching. In fact, some never will. It's sort of like comparing Crosby to Gretzky. After the 3rd or 4th season Crosby was just too far behind the pace of Gretzky at the same age. He'll never be in the same mix. Someone like Bourque has already made it impossible for the current crop to ever catch.

You've already made your mind up and that's a silly way to operate. Doughty and Karlsson are only 24 and could still accomplish so much. We've seen what Doughty can do on a big stage like the Olympics and Playoffs and people have really taken notice. Bourque had a great start to his career but it's not insurmountable. Bourque got the AS nods while Doughty has been huge at key times.

This is where I think you get things wrong, because Lidstrom is certainly an all-time great. There isn't a monumental gap between Bourque and Lidstrom for example but I do think there is enough separation to say Bourque was superior. For me it looks like this:

Orr
..........
..........
Bourque/Harvey
..............
Shore/Lidstrom
...............
Potvin
Robinson
Kelly
Coffey
Chelios

It is hard to rank Shore but he fits in there somewhere. Lidstrom wins on longevity here. Potvin was done at 35, literally. Coffey for all intents and purposes had his last great year in 1996. Robinson was steady and good in the latter part of the 1980s, but a notch below the elite. Kelly became a forward in 1960. Chelios played forever as well, but had less great seasons. So career-wise that's how a look at it with those gaps in there. Lidstrom beats Potvin based on his longevity. There is no way Lidstrom was superior to Potvin peak vs. peak either, but since he did so much after 35 he is above him all-time in my opinion.

See, what's wrong with this list? It isn't as if Lidstrom never gets his due around here. But look at the freaking names he's competing with. Somewhere along the way you're going to get put down a notch.

The list isn't terrible. I just don't see how Lidstrom sits below both Harvey and Bourque, even in a peer to peer comparison like I assume you're doing. His accomplishments are too similar to Harvey and simply saying Harvey controlled the play more doesn't work when Lidstrom has such a big offensive edge on him. To me either Bourque is above both or below both (peer to peer again). It depends on how much you value being a # 1 defenseman on (modern) dynasties with 7 Norris' versus leading a team that wasn't as successful with less Norris' in arguably a harder era to win them.

 

[Rhiessan71]

They weren't as far off as you make them out to be either.

Yes, they really were. Don't be silly and if you honestly believe that, then you don't have a clue what you're watching.

Now it was Chelios' peak season? Hehe, first you claimed Chelios always narrowly beat Bourque, which wasn't true, so now it's time to make a different claim instead.

Bourque finished top-4 in Norris voting for 17 straight seasons. 19 total. Chelios finish top-4 7 times total.

Lidstrom had off years for 5 of his Norris'? Wow, you have impossible standards for him. I watched a player who rarely took penalties, rarely made mistakes, and dominated without even being physical, and his teams finished near the top of the standings. I don't see how any of those seasons could be considered "off years" by anyone but you.

Simply because it's true. Lidstrom's peak seasons were 99/00 and 00/01, the rest were prime seasons but not peak seasons.

Yup, that's why Harvey falls behind in the offensive comparisons I brought up. You claim he changed the game and may have been better than Orr in puck control but then say Orr had to come along and break down that barrier. You have made no sense and you continue to make no sense.

Heh, you keep saying it makes no sense and you keep on ignoring the reasons why.
Infancy of the slapshot, the modern Dman's #1 weapon and point producer.
The inclusion of Dmen in offensive game plan, the main thing that Orr changed.
But hey just continue to ignore these explanations and keep on spouting that you pretend (at least I hope at this point you are pretending) to not understand.
It's not like I have explained this like 4 times already without a reasonable response that holds anything resembling a counter

I saw Bourque's heroics in the late 80's and early 90's. I was a Wings/Pens fan living in Toronto so I watched Wings/Pens games on satellite and Leafs games on local TV, along with most HNIC games. On top of that I always watched the playoffs. I watched way too much hockey back then. I wasn't a Bruins fan but you aren't either so I probably saw as much of Bourque as you did from about '87 on.

So how in the hell could you have watched Bourque do what he did on a nightly basis for as freakin long as he did and STILL have the ignorance to say Lidstrom was even his equal, let alone better? It's mind boggling.

While we're at it, how many games have you seen Harvey play? and how did you watch them?

Close to 50 I'd say between the NHL network, youtube and other sites that are DL only.
If you really want to find games, you can.

That's your problem, you think you know but you actually don't.

Coming from the guy that says Chelios at 40 "wasn't that far off" from Chelios at 34

Not even top 10? You underrate Lidstrom so badly it takes all credibility from you in this topic. Potvin was great but he and Lidstrom are comparable. Both were the top dmen in the league for an extended period, and both were # 1 dmen in 4 Cup runs. Lidstrom just had a longer career and had his success spread out more.

No it doesn't. Lidstrom is where he is through his incredible consistency and longevity. It is NOT because of his peak play.
Guys like Potvin, Robinson, Park, Leetch, MacInnis and Chelios all peaked higher.

Don't even attempt to say that Lidstrom was Potvin's equal at Potvin's peak, no one and I mean no one will agree to that. Most will in fact, laugh at it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Doug Harvey simply refused to make the first move. Passive would not fit someone who fought Fern Flaman and Lou Fontinato twice or a player who twice topped 100 PIMs.

I meant passive in his defensive style not as a player.
He didn't attack opposing puck carriers like Dmen were trained to do up till that point. He played positionally and they came to him, Harvey knowing that eventually they had to go to the net.

 

[danincanada]

Bourque finished top-4 in Norris voting for 17 straight seasons. 19 total. Chelios finish top-4 7 times total.

You didn't fact check your claim so you moved the goal posts. This response of yours has nothing to do with that.

Simply because it's true. Lidstrom's peak seasons were 99/00 and 00/01, the rest were prime seasons but not peak seasons.

Based on what? Season point totals? I watched Lidstrom's whole career and he didn't really have a peak because he was so consistent for so many years. If anything it was that playoff run in '02 but it's difficult to even claim that. His hockey year in '98 was great, so was '08. Playoffs mean a lot to me and they should be included in peaks where possible.

Heh, you keep saying it makes no sense and you keep on ignoring the reasons why.
Infancy of the slapshot, the modern Dman's #1 weapon and point producer.
The inclusion of Dmen in offensive game plan, the main thing that Orr changed.
But hey just continue to ignore these explanations and keep on spouting that you pretend (at least I hope at this point you are pretending) to not understand.
It's not like I have explained this like 4 times already without a reasonable response that holds anything resembling a counter

Sorry, your claims don't make any sense and I can't help you with that. No one had a slapshot back then but players still scored goals including defenseman. You claim Harvey controlled the puck far more than Lidstrom and maybe even more than Orr, then every other claim of yours and evidence we have disputes that. I don't need to ignore anything. How else can I respond? Your claims don't add up.

So how in the hell could you have watched Bourque do what he did on a nightly basis for as freakin long as he did and STILL have the ignorance to say Lidstrom was even his equal, let alone better? It's mind boggling.

Because Lidstrom was better defensively and played the position on a Gretzky-like level in terms of hockey IQ. All he did was win over and over again and the Red Wings never missed the playoffs under his watch.

Close to 50 I'd say between the NHL network, youtube and other sites that are DL only.
If you really want to find games, you can.

So I've seen more of Bourque than you've seen of Harvey. That's good to know going forward.

No it doesn't. Lidstrom is where he is through his incredible consistency and longevity. It is NOT because of his peak play.
Guys like Potvin, Robinson, Park, Leetch, MacInnis and Chelios all peaked higher.

Don't even attempt to say that Lidstrom was Potvin's equal at Potvin's peak, no one and I mean no one will agree to that. Most will in fact, laugh at it.

Is this still based on big point totals in a season? I think many people in the hockey world would laugh at you for underestimating the impact Lidstrom actually had. It was about a lot more than just points.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You didn't fact check your claim so you moved the goal posts. This response of yours has nothing to do with that.

Naw, Chelios doesn't take home the Norris that year vs any of Bourque's Norris seasons or in a few of his others either.

Based on what? Season point totals? I watched Lidstrom's whole career and he didn't really have a peak because he was so consistent for so many years. If anything it was that playoff run in '02 but it's difficult to even claim that. His hockey year in '98 was great, so was '08. Playoffs mean a lot to me and they should be included in peaks where possible.

Lidstrom didn't "peak" for his entire career. He has his prime and he has his peak.

Sorry, your claims don't make any sense and I can't help you with that. No one had a slapshot back then but players still scored goals including defenseman. You claim Harvey controlled the puck far more than Lidstrom and maybe even more than Orr, then every other claim of yours and evidence we have disputes that. I don't need to ignore anything. How else can I respond? Your claims don't add up.

Just stop. Please show me higher goal scoring totals from Dmen back then, prove it!
Again, the biggest difference between their offensive contributions is goals. Their playmaking and assists are about equal and considering that Dmen simply weren't included in offensive gameplans or were even thought of as being part of the offense, that puts it squarely in Harvey's favour.
Harvey was going uphill in every offensive facet yet still matched Lidstrom in playmaking and assists.

Because Lidstrom was better defensively and played the position on a Gretzky-like level in terms of hockey IQ. All he did was win over and over again and the Red Wings never missed the playoffs under his watch.

No one had anything close to Gretzky's IQ. Overrate much? Lidstrom was good for sure but again, if Bourque's offensive prowess is downplayed due to playing in a more offensive League then the same must be done for Lidstrom's defense playing in a more defensive League.

{Mod}

Is this still based on big point totals in a season? I think many people in the hockey world would laugh at you for underestimating the impact Lidstrom actually had. It was about a lot more than just points.

Just ask the question of who was better at their peak, Potvin or Lidstrom. See what happens.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No it doesn't. Lidstrom is where he is through his incredible consistency and longevity. It is NOT because of his peak play.
Guys like Potvin, Robinson, Park, Leetch, MacInnis and Chelios all peaked higher.
.

So in your opinion, 6 guys from the 75-95 period all peaked higher than anyone who came since? Edit: Make it 7, because I know you would include Bourque there, too.

 

[Sentinel]

I agree that Lidstrom did not really have a peak. I don't think there was much difference in his play in 97, 02, or 10.

I'd say Fetisov had a higher peak than Bourque. Slightly.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So in your opinion, 6 guys from the 75-95 period all peaked higher than anyone who came since? Edit: Make it 7, because I know you would include Bourque there, too.

Take a guy like Stevens who can't even sniff a Norris during those years in his prime/peak.
Would you not agree that a peak Stevens walks away with a lot more hardware from 2000-today than he was able to from 85-2000?
That's about as close as one can get to a rhetorical question as one can get without it actually being rhetorical.
Call it the Orr effect, I dunno but there just seemed to be more top end, elite talent at the Dman position then than there has been since.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Take a guy like Stevens who can't even sniff a Norris during those years in his prime/peak.
Would you not agree that a peak Stevens walks away with a lot more hardware from 2000-today than he was able to from 85-2000?
That's about as close as one can get to a rhetorical question as one can get without it actually being rhetorical.
Call it the Orr effect, I dunno but there just seemed to be more top end, elite talent at the Dman position then than there has been since.

I think he came close enough to the Norris in 93/94 to at least get a little whiff

Yeah, the competition among defensemen was definitely stronger back then, IMO largely because it was by far the best group of American defensemen ever. I just take issue with some of the names who you said peaked higher than Lidstrom - Park, Chelios, and MacInnis in particular, though Leetch really only has a case if you take single season or playoffs. Just my opinion.

 

[Sens Rule]

I think he came close enough to the Norris in 93/94 to at least get a little whiff

Yeah, the competition among defensemen was definitely stronger back then, IMO largely because it was by far the best group of American defensemen ever. I just take issue with some of the names who you said peaked higher than Lidstrom - Park, Chelios, and MacInnis in particular, though Leetch really only has a case if you take single season or playoffs. Just my opinion.

But let's compare them... Not to Lidstrom but to Duncan Keith. Keith who has 2 Norris trophies. Based on being a very good D on an elite team... Not being elite himself. In the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's... He doesn't sniff a Norris... He doesn't finish top 5 in his best years. He is Sergei Gonchar. Just like Chelios finishes 2nd in Norris voting at 40 in maybe his 10th or 12th best season... Because the elite competition at D had disappeared. I am talking about Keith. And the silliness of saying Harvey is comparable to him.

 

[Big Phil]

But let's compare them... Not to Lidstrom but to Duncan Keith. Keith who has 2 Norris trophies. Based on being a very good D on an elite team... Not being elite himself. In the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's... He doesn't sniff a Norris... He doesn't finish top 5 in his best years. He is Sergei Gonchar. Just like Chelios finishes 2nd in Norris voting at 40 in maybe his 10th or 12th best season... Because the elite competition at D had disappeared. I am talking about Keith. And the silliness of saying Harvey is comparable to him.

Yeap.

Take a guy like Stevens who can't even sniff a Norris during those years in his prime/peak.
Would you not agree that a peak Stevens walks away with a lot more hardware from 2000-today than he was able to from 85-2000?
That's about as close as one can get to a rhetorical question as one can get without it actually being rhetorical.
Call it the Orr effect, I dunno but there just seemed to be more top end, elite talent at the Dman position then than there has been since.

Yeap. Stevens has a Norris from 2000 to today. He came close in 1994 of course, but take away Bourque and he has two of them in his day. So yeah he wins a couple in this era.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But let's compare them... Not to Lidstrom but to Duncan Keith. Keith who has 2 Norris trophies. Based on being a very good D on an elite team... Not being elite himself. In the 70's, 80's and early to mid 90's... He doesn't sniff a Norris... He doesn't finish top 5 in his best years. He is Sergei Gonchar. Just like Chelios finishes 2nd in Norris voting at 40 in maybe his 10th or 12th best season... Because the elite competition at D had disappeared. I am talking about Keith. And the silliness of saying Harvey is comparable to him.

Keith was arguably the best player in the world in 2009-10. He had a nasty Cup hangover, then had an amazing first half of 2013-14 before slowing down.

Just because he isn't a big hitter doesn't make him Sergei Gonchar.

 

[Big Phil]

I'm as sure that Harvey would be run of the mill today as you are that Keith wouldn't even make an AHL team back in the O6. We both made those claims so we'd better stand behind them. Oh wait, neither of us made those claims...

Keith has already been a # 1 defenseman on two Cup winners and won 2 Norris'. I think he's a little ahead of Niedermayer at the same age and still has time to further that. Both Niedermayer and Keith were great defenseman when at their best but were both behind Lidstrom. We can agree on that but I also think Keith would be one of those elite guys in any other era. You're simply underrating how good todays elite guys are.

No I'm not, Keith is a fine defenseman. Will be in the HHOF. That being said, I do find it a bit perplexing that you think Keith would be elite in any era (which I agree with although I can see him having a much harder time in certain eras with a logjam of great defensemen winning a Norris) but you can't imagine Harvey being great in any era...............because?

Pronger would have had similar "staying power" or longevity if he didn't suffer a career ending injury. Like I said, Pronger was not "well behind" Robinson at all. Both were dominant and elite for a long time.

Career-wise Pronger lags behind him. You're right, a healthy Pronger and we're talking a different story most likely, I wish we could have seen it, I honestly do. He was a beast when he was healthy even up until the 2010 Cup final.

Norris:
Pronger - 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 10, 15
Robinson - 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5

Take into account a few things. Robinson beats Pronger in postseason play. Has a Conn Smythe to his name. Robinson is the all-time leader in +/-. Robinson was better defensively, just as tough, just as good of a fighter if not better and picked his spots better. Robinson was less injury prone. Robinson was better offensively, rushing the puck, etc.

Either man is a star in any era you plunk them down in though. Pronger in my mind is a clear cut choice better than either of Blake or Niedermayer whom he often gets compared to and so far Chara hasn't caught up to him either.

Also, Keith is what drives the Black Hawks defense core and he's right there with Toews and Kane as team MVP so it's really not that different from Harvey.

Harvey was right there as MVP of the Habs with Beliveau though. You can't get much better than that.

You've already made your mind up and that's a silly way to operate. Doughty and Karlsson are only 24 and could still accomplish so much. We've seen what Doughty can do on a big stage like the Olympics and Playoffs and people have really taken notice. Bourque had a great start to his career but it's not insurmountable. Bourque got the AS nods while Doughty has been huge at key times.

Probably because Bourque had one of the greatest careers to date. He was elite from day one. He had longevity, he had great seasons when he didn't win the Norris, he had great ones when he did, some of the greatest. You can argue Bourque peaked higher at his best than any other defenseman since Orr. Doughty and Karlsson both have one all-star nod at 24 years old. That's nice and all, but Bourque had them in his first 17 seasons. You're going to have to see an insanely epic run from the ground running and I can't see it right now. We aren't talking about Andy Delmore here.

The list isn't terrible. I just don't see how Lidstrom sits below both Harvey and Bourque, even in a peer to peer comparison like I assume you're doing. His accomplishments are too similar to Harvey and simply saying Harvey controlled the play more doesn't work when Lidstrom has such a big offensive edge on him. To me either Bourque is above both or below both (peer to peer again). It depends on how much you value being a # 1 defenseman on (modern) dynasties with 7 Norris' versus leading a team that wasn't as successful with less Norris' in arguably a harder era to win them.

You have to look at what defensemen did back then too. Here are the point leaders in Harvey's best years from 1950-'62

Harvey - 429
Gadsby - 411
Kelly - 378
Stanley - 290

As you can see, peer to peer Harvey was a gem offensively. Who was his next best teammate as a defenseman? Tom Johnson with 222. Johnson is still a HHOFer. So keep in mind that defensmen didn't score quite the same even compared to the dead puck era. Orr hadn't redefined the position yet. Harvey and Kelly especially were considered pioneers for moving the play up the ice.

By the way, with Bourque you have to remember, he had more elite seasons, and he did a lot on Boston to get them as far as possible. The leaders all-time for defensemen in playoff points are:

Coffey - 196
Lidstrom - 183
Bourque - 180

There is no one who is going to view the Bruins at that time and say to themselves that Bourque couldn't get them over the top. Everyone knew he was a fixture in getting them that far. He led his team in scoring multiple times. Put it this way, in every single season of Bourque's career, the worst he finished for the Norris was 7th. He did that three times. The other 19 he was no worse than 4th. Let that simmer, that is unbelievable. Now which modern player in the NHL today will even come close to that. Lidstrom was the last one and he was still a far distance behind. This isn't knocking current players, it is just showing you how difficult it would be to do this year after year.

 

[danincanada]

Naw, Chelios doesn't take home the Norris that year vs any of Bourque's Norris seasons or in a few of his others either.

What was wrong with Bourque's season? I think he had a fine season, similar to his other great seasons. The Bruins even finished second overall, ahead of Chelios' Hawks. Bourque just got overshadowed by Oates and his 142 point season, as well as Juneau to a lesser extent. Oates overshadowed Bourque for Hart votes as well. It's the one downside of being a great defenseman on a team with one or two star forwards. Rightly or wrongly, Roenick didn't have as much impact on people's view of Chelios that season.

Lidstrom didn't "peak" for his entire career. He has his prime and he has his peak.

I never said he did. Like I said earlier, it's hard to tell where Lidstrom peaked because he was so consistent through most of his prime. He had a number of years where you could say he was at his best. When exactly did Harvey peak?

Just stop. Please show me higher goal scoring totals from Dmen back then, prove it!
Again, the biggest difference between their offensive contributions is goals. Their playmaking and assists are about equal and considering that Dmen simply weren't included in offensive gameplans or were even thought of as being part of the offense, that puts it squarely in Harvey's favour.
Harvey was going uphill in every offensive facet yet still matched Lidstrom in playmaking and assists.

It appears Harvey just wasn't much of a goal scorer. He never lead defenseman in goal scoring during the season and he only score 8 goals in 137 playoff games. Generally, Kelly (assuming he was a dman until '60) and Mohns scored a lot more than he did. I wouldn't hold it against Harvey though because goal scoring should be down the list of priorities when ranking defenseman.

As I did with points though, here are their career assists:

Harvey assists per game - raw regular season 0.406, adjusted regular season 0.515, raw playoffs 0.467.

Lidstrom assists per game - raw regular season 0.561, adjusted regular season 0.587, raw playoffs 0.490.

Looks like Lidstrom still edges out Harvey in this comparison as well.

No one had anything close to Gretzky's IQ. Overrate much? Lidstrom was good for sure but again, if Bourque's offensive prowess is downplayed due to playing in a more offensive League then the same must be done for Lidstrom's defense playing in a more defensive League.

Harvey's defensive game should be downgraded even further then?

I saw the same IQ in Lidstrom that former NHL player and coach Dave Tippett saw:

Dallas coach Dave Tippett — now with the Phoenix Coyotes — would put it best: “If you could rattle him, you might get him off his game,” he told Sports Illustrated. “Except I’ve never seen him rattled. He anticipates defensively the way [Wayne] Gretzky and [Mario] Lemieux anticipated offensively.”

{Mod}

Just ask the question of who was better at their peak, Potvin or Lidstrom. See what happens.

Potvin's peak is more condensed and obvious so I'd probably side with him too - in a peer to peer comparison. What I said is they are comparable. You know, both Norris winning, #1 dmen on teams that won 4 Cups. Both were pretty great defenseman by anyone's standards, prime or peak.

 

[danincanada]

No I'm not, Keith is a fine defenseman. Will be in the HHOF. That being said, I do find it a bit perplexing that you think Keith would be elite in any era (which I agree with although I can see him having a much harder time in certain eras with a logjam of great defensemen winning a Norris) but you can't imagine Harvey being great in any era...............because?

Are you really reading my posts or just skimming through them? Where have I said this? You keep trying to point to things I've never stated or implied.

Career-wise Pronger lags behind him. You're right, a healthy Pronger and we're talking a different story most likely, I wish we could have seen it, I honestly do. He was a beast when he was healthy even up until the 2010 Cup final.

Norris:
Pronger - 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7, 8, 10, 10, 15
Robinson - 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5

Take into account a few things. Robinson beats Pronger in postseason play. Has a Conn Smythe to his name. Robinson is the all-time leader in +/-. Robinson was better defensively, just as tough, just as good of a fighter if not better and picked his spots better. Robinson was less injury prone. Robinson was better offensively, rushing the puck, etc.

Either man is a star in any era you plunk them down in though. Pronger in my mind is a clear cut choice better than either of Blake or Niedermayer whom he often gets compared to and so far Chara hasn't caught up to him either.

Looks like we pretty much agree on this. They were comparable on a peer to peer basis. Pronger's career got cut short though and he could have narrowed the gap even more. Pronger probably had at least a couple more elite seasons left in him and with Lidstrom aging/retiring he could have done some damage on the Norris/AS front, as well as have more great playoff years.

Probably because Bourque had one of the greatest careers to date. He was elite from day one. He had longevity, he had great seasons when he didn't win the Norris, he had great ones when he did, some of the greatest. You can argue Bourque peaked higher at his best than any other defenseman since Orr. Doughty and Karlsson both have one all-star nod at 24 years old. That's nice and all, but Bourque had them in his first 17 seasons. You're going to have to see an insanely epic run from the ground running and I can't see it right now. We aren't talking about Andy Delmore here.

That's all true and I doubt Doughty or Karlsson will have better careers than Bourque. Doughty has already proven himself in the playoffs and on the current Olympic stage though. Having a terrific season is great and all but personally I weigh high level competition such as the playoffs and Olympics more heavily. If Doughty keeps this up and continues to just have good regular seasons but has a full career where he's known as a clutch performer in big games it's going to be tough to rank him properly against anybody.

You have to look at what defensemen did back then too. Here are the point leaders in Harvey's best years from 1950-'62

Harvey - 429
Gadsby - 411
Kelly - 378
Stanley - 290

As you can see, peer to peer Harvey was a gem offensively. Who was his next best teammate as a defenseman? Tom Johnson with 222. Johnson is still a HHOFer. So keep in mind that defensmen didn't score quite the same even compared to the dead puck era. Orr hadn't redefined the position yet. Harvey and Kelly especially were considered pioneers for moving the play up the ice.

This is kind of skewed when you pick Harvey's best years, don't you think? You're comparing him with an All-Canadian league of pre-baby boomers as well. No offense to Harvey or the O6 era but it just doesn't impress me as much as it impresses others around here. It just doesn't seem fair to do these peer to peer comparisons with modern players who face a much deeper talent pool.

 

[Rhiessan71]

What was wrong with Bourque's season? I think he had a fine season, similar to his other great seasons. The Bruins even finished second overall, ahead of Chelios' Hawks. Bourque just got overshadowed by Oates and his 142 point season, as well as Juneau to a lesser extent. Oates overshadowed Bourque for Hart votes as well. It's the one downside of being a great defenseman on a team with one or two star forwards. Rightly or wrongly, Roenick didn't have as much impact on people's view of Chelios that season.

It wasn't similar though, it was actually an off season for Bourque. That's the difference between Bourque and just about anyone else, including Lidstrom, Ray's "off seasons" are still as good or better than just about anyone else's best seasons.

I never said he did. Like I said earlier, it's hard to tell where Lidstrom peaked because he was so consistent through most of his prime. He had a number of years where you could say he was at his best. When exactly did Harvey peak?

The point is that the height of Lidstrom's peak, no matter what season one wants to use was not as high as others, quite a few others in fact.
Lidstrom maintained a high level for a long time as in his flame burned fairly bright a long time, didn't never burned as bright as many others.
Bourque's flame on the other hand burned brighter and longer than Lidstrom's.

It appears Harvey just wasn't much of a goal scorer. He never lead defenseman in goal scoring during the season and he only score 8 goals in 137 playoff games. Generally, Kelly (assuming he was a dman until '60) and Mohns scored a lot more than he did. I wouldn't hold it against Harvey though because goal scoring should be down the list of priorities when ranking defenseman.

You're kidding me right?
Both Kelly and Mohns played forward quite often (Mohns even more than Kelly) AND Mohns was also famous for being an early slapshot expert.
Oh what's that? I specifically mentioned the slapshot as being a big goal and point producer for modern Dmen

As I did with points though, here are their career assists:

Harvey assists per game - raw regular season 0.406, adjusted regular season 0.515, raw playoffs 0.467.

Lidstrom assists per game - raw regular season 0.561, adjusted regular season 0.587, raw playoffs 0.490.

Looks like Lidstrom still edges out Harvey in this comparison as well.

Yeah, with adjusted stats, playing in not only a lower scoring era but at a time when Dmen weren't included in offensive strategies and when secondary assists were often missed.
Finishing top-5 in assists as Dman back then was a HELL of a lot harder to accomplish than it is today.

Sorry, edge Harvey. He wasn't just going up one hill, he was going up multiple hills to produce offensively.

Harvey's defensive game should be downgraded even further then?

Harvey's defensive game is today's defensive game. HE'S THE ONE THAT CHANGED IT ALL!!!

I saw the same IQ in Lidstrom that former NHL player and coach Dave Tippett saw:

What's so hard about reading most plays today. The game has been so much more structured during most of Lidstrom's career. Players trying to produce offense are limited to only so many options, very few players are truly creative anymore and Lidstrom had to worry about fewer options and creatively than Bourque had to most of his career. Yet at the end of the day, Bourque's actual results both offensively and defensively are better than Lidstrom's....hmmmm.

Considering that Bourque played in a much higher scoring era vs Lidstrom's lower scoring era, how is it even possible that Bourque was on the ice for fewer goals against per 60 minutes than Lidstrom was?
Even with the advantage of playing when a lot fewer goals were scored period, Lidstrom STILL finishes behind Bourque or is this just another little tidbit you like to ignore?

Potvin's peak is more condensed and obvious so I'd probably side with him too - in a peer to peer comparison. What I said is they are comparable. You know, both Norris winning, #1 dmen on teams that won 4 Cups. Both were pretty great defenseman by anyone's standards, prime or peak.

Except Potvin was much better at his best and was THE leader of the Isles period and everyone knew it.