It doesn't matter what country they came from. Look at those original 6 names. Sure they are Canadian, but that does not matter at all to anyone but you apparently.
It just proves that having more streams of talent matters when it comes to awards and all-star voting. The non-Canadians displaced the Canadians that would have been in those positions if it had still be the O6 era. You're going to have to accept this and deal with it, not keep sticking your head in the sand saying it doesn't matter.
Harvey controlled the game better. He is considered by many to be the most important player on a dynasty that featured a prime Jean Beliveau.
Prove that Harvey controlled the game better. Lidstrom, who was basically a defense-first guy, produced more offensively in raw and adjusted stats than Harvey. Lidstrom is also considered by many to be the most important player in the Red Wings past 4 cups, which featured Yzerman, Fedorov, Zetterberg, and Datsyuk. In fact, he was the only constant superstar in all 4 championships.
Again, it doesn't matter what country they are from. It only matters what the top end competition looked like. There are some eras that were tougher than others to win a Norris. The 2000s were NOT among the top. Even the 2010s have been tougher. There are more to choose from at the top end right now I think. The early 1990s and late 1980s were incredibly competitive in that position. Just a logjam. Some eras have it more than others.
Comparing the top end competition across vastly different eras is highly subjective. Unless you want to claim Canadian hockey has nose-dived to the point that the only reason why there are elite players from other countries now is because Canada is so bad at producing elite players then you'd better accept that having elite players from multiple nations has improved the top end competition. Is that what you're proposing?
Because the guy focused a lot more on playmaking as early as 1986 as we can see. Which can come at the expense of some goals. But then again, what am I thinking? I'm not going to get into an argument about how a 41 goal 122 assist season is anything but otherworldly.
Not just some goals, a lot of goals. That's for another thread though.
Doesn't matter, look at the names and look at the fact that the same names are generally popping up.
As I've clearly shown there are more names popping up as we go along, and from different nations which points to additional elite talent coming into the league.
Doesn't matter. The same names are popping up. There is a reason for this. Carol Vadnais wasn't a threat to win a Norris. Even if there were 100 of them in the NHL he would never have been a threat. Those names I posted were. Let me know if those aren't some good names.
The "best are always the best". Let's not give it any context, I get it, nothing to discuss here, move along.
How is Orr, Park, Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Lapointe and Savard not similar at the top end to Bourque, Coffey, Stevens, Leetch, Chelios, MacInnis? All because there are Americans instead of Canadians? It doesn't matter. Besides, you are also counting Al Iafrate in this mix. Think about that. Al Iafrate. He was a 2nd team all-star once. That season was unusual for him, it was an abberation. He wasn't a threat to dethrone Bourque or Chelios in 1993. Not even close.
You're the one who said it's the same guys year after year. If you're upset that Iafrate was voted an AS then don't complain to me. Another way of looking at it is he wasn't a threat to dethrone Bourque or Chelios but he did take away an AS nomination from Coffey and Stevens that year.
As nice as the core is in 2014, they still are worse at the top level than the late 1980s and early 1990s and the mid to late 1970s. No question. Unless you want to find a way to say Keith, Weber, Chara, Subban, Suter, Doughty, etc. trump the top end on either of these other eras. I can't see it at all. That's what I mean about which era is "harder" to win the Norris in. I don't bother to look at their place of birth. It means little.
First of all, most of the current guys still have long careers ahead of them so I think you'd better be careful pretending you know how good they are because that perception could change a lot as their careers progress.
Secondly, let me guess, you're basing this judgment of current elite defenders being somewhat inferior to past guys on your eye test? Or is it their offensive stats? Good luck with that. It's completely subjective and you'd have just as much luck going to scout an OHL game and predicting how a player would do in the NHL.
Thirdly, I didn't say the current group trumps that past groups, although I think they are deeper (AKA more competition). I think they are very much comparable though at least, not inferior.
The names are the same though aren't they? Keith, Chara, Weber are the three prominent names aren't they? No other defensemen in a 30 team league have been able to compare with especially Chara or Weber's year in and year out consistency. Remember, this is a 30 team league and the best ones at the top end are generally still the same year after year until a shift happens. You'd be crazy if you think Harvey wouldn't be one of those names in there constantly.
Chara is an absolute freak of nature. Weber pretty much is too cause he's huge, mobile, and has great hockey sense. They'd be dominant players in any modern era.
Sure, Harvey could be one of those names, but would he be as elite as he was in his time? I doubt it, because there is more competition, and that's my whole point.
Look, we've all talked about how when Lidstrom was winning his Norrises that there was less top end competition when he did it. He'd lose out to prime Potvin, Coffey, Orr and Bourque. Maybe even prime Robinson. All the likes of Chelios and Leetch would give him a run for his money too at their best. You could argue there is a 10 year span 1985-'95 where Lidstrom's best season still wouldn't win a Norris. Or 1970-'79 he doesn't win one either. Not even his best season. Do we penalize Lidstrom for this? No, because we saw how he played. He was great. It's that simple. But it is possible for their to be better top end talent in earlier eras than the current crop. Just because there are more teams, it doesn't mean there will be more top end defensemen year after year. If you can take one thing away from what I said, I hope it is that. This was the point of showing you the similarities between eras of the best defensemen. The cream always rose to the top whether it was the 1950s or 2014.
We've talked about it? You've claimed it, but you've also steered clear of claiming that for Harvey, and instead point to one guy breathing down his neck (Kelly), as if that's plenty of competition.
You're really underrating Lidstrom. His impact on the ice is hard to gauge in any particular season but the league has never seen a player that dominant who so rarely took penalties, rarely got injured, and rarely made mistakes, all while being a workhorse on the back end of a modern day dynasty. He was completely unique and if you didn't watch him every game you wouldn't realize how impactful he really was.
Chelios, who saw Lidstrom first hand, doesn't agree with you either:
"You can't say there's anyone better," he said. "I played with Larry Robinson; I played against (Ray) Bourque. You go even further, Doug Harvey. It's just different eras. But in my opinion, there couldn't have been anybody better than Nick Lidstrom."
http://www.freep.com/article/201206...s-lidstrom-dave-lewis-chris-chelios-joe-kocur
I'll tell Potvin and Orr the next time I see them that they wouldn't cut it in today's game
I never said those guys couldn't cut it in today's game or even be superstars. That's a very weak try at discrediting my argument.
