Who would still be a star?

[danincanada]

But does Harvey win a Conn Smythe if they existed? Pretty good chance I would say. I would also point to Yzerman or Fedorov as the biggest pieces of that Wings trio of Cups. I'm not sure anyone overtakes Harvey on the Habs. That says something to you doesn't it?

Sure, Harvey may have won a Conn Smythe if they existed just like Lidstrom did. I don't see how that backs up your opinion that he was more valuable to his teams than Lidstrom was though. Offensively, Lidstrom generally had higher finishes on his teams than Harvey and both were excellent defensively so I fail to see where you think Harvey has an advantage in this regard. If he really controlled the play so much better than why doesn't it show through offense?

Ask Red Wings fans if they'd place Yzerman and Fedorov above Lidstrom for those 3 Cups. Personally, I won't say one was more important than the other because they were all crucial. I'll always contend that Fedorov should have won the CS in '97, then they'd each have one because that's the way it should have been. Lidstrom played the most in those 3 runs though though and anchored the blueline so some could claim he was the most important. That's probably the same argument for Harvey. Star centres often get more credit than two-way defenders but who's really more impactful overall?

Lidstrom trumps Pilote. That wasn't the point I was making that seemed to go over your head. I was saying that there was a time when there was a bit of a lull for defensemen and the 1960s pre-Orr was one of those eras. I saw the 2000s as one of those eras as well. As you can see, we are naming names like Desjardins, Hatcher, Gonchar, Zubov, etc. None are likely to make the HHOF. This is from 2001 onwards of course. You may as well throw Dan Boyle into the mix. Bourque retired in 2001. Leetch was on the decline by then, as was Stevens. MacInnis was old. That old crew from the 1990s wasn't really in the position to be in the Norris mix year after year. When they all fizzled away it did pave the way for Lidstrom to win some. Now, give him credit, he did win a lot of them and it says a lot. But if you are going to attack other eras even like Harvey's then you have to be fair and realize that Lidstrom had some advantages too. His era wasn't exactly filled with HHOF defenseman, just like Pilote's. No one thought Eric Desjardins was going to win the Norris. Not even his mother. Blake was around for a bit, Pronger when he wasn't injured was around, but especially from 2001-'04 that was a bit of a lull. Post lockout it wasn't much better either. So regardless of what country these guys are born in, it does go in cycles. There was a much deeper pool of elite defenseman in the 1970s and 1990s. Heck, I saw it.

Leetch was on the decline even though he was only 2 years older than Lidstrom? Granted his teams weren't as strong, but the DPE also seemed to really hurt Leetch's game.

Blake and Niedermayer are already in the HOF and Pronger will be. Chara probably will be as well along with Weber and Keith and possibly others given time. I'd also say it's more difficult to make the HOF now because they only induct 4 players each year and the NHL is a 30 team league with more and deeper talent streams. Therefore, it's not reallya fair way to compare those two eras this way, is it? You seem to have it set in your mind though even though the NHL is drawing from a much larger talent pool now than in the 60's.

Harvey and Kelly would be winning Norrises in the 2010s. No question about it. So would Orr. So would Bourque. Bourque won 5 of them against much stiffer competition. Right now, there isn't a defenseman that is at the level of any of them that I just mentioned. It doesn't mean that Keith couldn't win one, it just means that consistently he'd be lagging behind. You act as if I am mentioning anything but all-time great defensemen here.

I agree those guys could win Norris' now. I don't agree there's no question about all of them being superior to the current crop (re: Keith lagging behind). You are clearly disrespecting how good current players are and how much work they put into their craft. You are also getting stuck assuming something is true when it's not really that clear and it's certainly not a fact.

All depends when the comment was made too. They were teammates, you are going to talk well of your teammate. I don't think you'll find a lot of people who saw Bourque and Lidstrom's careers objectively and pick Lidstrom. Just saying. Bourque in 2001 was not Bourque in 1987 and he still finished 2nd to Lidstrom.

That comment was made in 2012 after both had retired.

Yes, Bourque was 40 in 2001 and was rejuvenated on a stacked Avs team, finishing second to Lidstrom while Pronger was injured. You can use that to assume that Bourque was superior in his prime but it's not really proof. Lidstrom was great at 40 as well and won the Norris. Maybe being 40 isn't as big a deal for an all-time great dman as people make it to be? If they're healthy and well conditioned then they can use their careers worth of experience to still dominate. MacInnis and Chelios both had some great seasons around that age as well. I'm more prone to giving them credit for it then pointing to how much better they were when they were at 30. It sure seems like a popular way to discredit younger players though.

 

[Rhiessan71]

R71 really hates the Red Wings...

Obviously you haven't seen me go to town for Yzerman over Sakic.

Btw, the Wings are my second favourite team.

 

[danincanada]

I'm just going to zero in on one thing here to show you how inconsistent you're being.

Yes, we have been through this already and once again you ignore what I actually said and just produce the stats differences.

What part of the League record for Dman scoring was just over 60 points was not understood? A record that Harvey at least got close to.
Lidstrom never came remotely close to the League record, he never even came close to 100 or 90.
With the exception of the PP infested first year after the LO, Lidstrom never even came close to 80. He much more often in the 60 point range.

The slapshot is by far the biggest point producer for Dmen today. In Harvey's day the slapshot was in its infancy, only a small handful of guys could even take one effectively.

Quite simply, it was much harder for Dmen to garner points back then. Teams attacked the offensive zone differently and moved the puck in it differently. It wasn't a cycle game, then up to the point deal going on and Dmen rarely joined the rush.
It was a game that really didn't include Dmen in the offensive scheme.

I didn't ask you not to listen to Chelios.
All I asked you to do was look at the facts.
A 40 year old, past his prime Chelios finishes a close second to Lidstrom as the best Dman in the League.
Yet a peak (not even just a prime) Chelios can only manage to narrowly beat Bourque twice and won once when Bourque missed a 1/4 of the season.

Sorry but I'll draw my own conclusions from the facts over Chelios blowing smoke up a teammates ass thank you very much.

And all this talk about Lidstrom controlling a game...he did to a degree but it was NOT in the same class as what Harvey, Orr and Bourque did.
For the umpteenth time, Lidstrom was not a puck carrier and did NOT handle the puck to any where close to the degree that Orr, Harvey and Bourque did.
Lidstrom was a first pass guy that garnered the vast majority of his points on the PP.

There's a reason that at the end of the day Bourque has a better ESGF/60-ESGA/60 and was over-all more effective than Lidstrom despite not being as good defensively.
Bourque had the puck on his stick much more often than his opposition did and much more often than Lidstrom did.

Then what made Harvey control the game more than Lidstrom? These two points completely contradict one another. Was Harvey simply better as carrying the puck and controlling the puck in his own end of the ice?

Read Bowman's comments by tinyzombies earlier on as well. In his opinion both Harvey and Lidstrom were so great because they always made the correct pass up to their forwards. He never says Harvey was great because of his great rushes. Either way, Lidstrom did exactly what was needed for his team and it worked. He was the safety valve defensively and transitioned the puck to his forwards flawlessly. Somehow that's never good enough for you. Bowman seems to be just fine with it though.

 

[danincanada]

R71 really hates the Red Wings...

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

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm just going to zero in on one thing here to show you how inconsistent you're being.



Then what made Harvey control the game more than Lidstrom? These two points completely contradict one another. Was Harvey simply better as carrying the puck and controlling the puck in his own end of the ice?

Read Bowman's comments by tinyzombies earlier on as well. In his opinion both Harvey and Lidstrom were so great because they always made the correct pass up to their forwards. He never says Harvey was great because of his great rushes. Either way, Lidstrom did exactly what was needed for his team and it worked. He was the safety valve defensively and transitioned the puck to his forwards flawlessly. Somehow that's never good enough for you. Bowman seems to be just fine with it though.

I'm not being inconsistent. You are being narrow-minded. You are trying to take what I said just about the off zone and apply it across the board.
Harvey controlled the puck in the def zone and neutral zone.
In fact, he was famous for not passing to a teammate unless they were moving. If no one was moving he would simply circle back and start over again.
No inconsistency on my part, just a lack of understanding on yours.

 

[danincanada]

I'm not being inconsistent. You are being narrow-minded. You are trying to take what I said just about the off zone and apply it across the board.
Harvey controlled the puck in the def zone and neutral zone.
In fact, he was famous for not passing to a teammate unless they were moving. If no one was moving he would simply circle back and start over again.
No inconsistency on my part, just a lack of understanding on yours.

Nope, you just got caught - time to backpeddle.

Lidstrom handled the puck an awful lot in breakouts and transition as well. Didn't you watch him play? Read Bowman's comments because that's exactly what I remember. He wasn't always passing it from behind his net you know. How do you think he racked up over 1,000 assists?

 

[Rhiessan71]

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

I have Lindstrom ranked only behind 3 (sometimes 4 depending on how I feel about Shore that month) other Dmen all-time.
If holding him up to Bourque, who was better longer and had a better peak is unreasonable then all I will is tough ****.

 

[danincanada]

I have Lindstrom ranked only behind 3 (sometimes 4 depending on how I feel about Shore that month) other Dmen all-time.
If holding him up to Bourque, who was better longer and had a better peak is unreasonable then all I will is tough ****.

You have a right to your opinion. The problem is you're not being consistent and never criticize Harvey like you do with Lidstrom even though they are extremely similar. It's soooo obvious.

 

[Big Phil]

A 40 year old, past his prime Chelios finishes a close second to Lidstrom as the best Dman in the League.
Yet a peak (not even just a prime) Chelios can only manage to narrowly beat Bourque twice and won once when Bourque missed a 1/4 of the season.

Sort of along the lines of things I've said too. To me, while it is not a huge margin, there is still enough space where I would say without a doubt that Bourque at his best and career-wise beats Lidstrom. This is one of many pieces of evidence that show this.

That's not the point. If it's so obvious you should be able to provide something more than "if you had seen him play, you'd know."

And what about players for whom there is little or no video in existence? How can we know things about them, and why are these methods not sufficient to establish Harvey's effectiveness?

7 Norris Trophies doesn't cut it for you? That's starting in 1955 a year after the Norris is established. That's plenty of evidence is it not? We use it for Lidstrom. It's a start. Finished 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 5 for the Hart trophy. He's got any defenseman not named Orr or Shore beat right there. Although Bourque is close to him there.

I'm not sure how clear the consensus is on Doug Harvey compared to either Bourque or Lidstrom. In the Defensemen project, which was generally more about who had the better career than who was the better player, Harvey edged Bourque for the #2 spot by only 10 points on a 935-point ballot. Lidstrom and Harvey weren't really held up against one another directly because of the way the conversation played out -- IIRC after the project I started a Lidstrom vs Harvey thread and it ended up much like this one.

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

Bourque rushed the puck up the ice and carried the play to a much larger degree than Lidstrom did. Harvey, and the other pioneer of rushing defensemen in Red Kelly did it better too. Nothing against Lidstrom, he produced offensively alright, but you never would have thought he was better "offensively" than them. Bourque was at times the offense that drove the engine on Boston. In fact, many times the OFFENSE lived or died because of him. That's an awfully big compliment for a defenseman isn't it? Bourque had more tools offensively than Lidstrom and this really isn't much of a debate. This is why among other things he gets ranked higher.

Leetch was on the decline even though he was only 2 years older than Lidstrom? Granted his teams weren't as strong, but the DPE also seemed to really hurt Leetch's game.

Lidstrom was not going against a full throttle Leetch. I don't think personally we saw that with him again after 1997. Leetch had a decade of being an elite defender, and while he was still "good" after that it wasn't the same.

Blake and Niedermayer are already in the HOF and Pronger will be. Chara probably will be as well along with Weber and Keith and possibly others given time. I'd also say it's more difficult to make the HOF now because they only induct 4 players each year and the NHL is a 30 team league with more and deeper talent streams. Therefore, it's not reallya fair way to compare those two eras this way, is it? You seem to have it set in your mind though even though the NHL is drawing from a much larger talent pool now than in the 60's.

And as I said before, there aren't many more truly "great" defenders than in past years. Adding 10 teams doesn't mean you'll get 10 more elite defenders. It probably means you'll get more run of the mill types. How does it affect the truly elite when there are more Don Sweeney's in the NHL? It means nothing for Norris voting. That's all I am saying.

I agree those guys could win Norris' now. I don't agree there's no question about all of them being superior to the current crop (re: Keith lagging behind). You are clearly disrespecting how good current players are and how much work they put into their craft. You are also getting stuck assuming something is true when it's not really that clear and it's certainly not a fact.

Alright, does Harvey win 7 Norris Trophies in the 1980s and 1990s? That would be very difficult to duplicate that. Would he win 7 in Lidstrom's era? I think he would. It just featured less competition. More teams or not I think you get stuck on that far too much. Hockey was hockey, 21 teams 14 teams or 30. What counts more is the guys you went up against. Harvey had Kelly who was the biggest threat to him. I'll give you that, only Tom Johnson interrupted Harvey's Norris streak. But if I can give you that how can you not see that Lidstrom for starters did not have a Kelly to compete with him, and secondly the ones competing with him (Niedermayer, an oft injured Pronger, Blake and Chara) lag behind in other eras. They just do, despite the fact they are all going to be in the HHOF. Put it this way, the player who finished 2nd in Norris voting in 2008 to Lidstrom was Dion Phaneuf. There are times when the defenders are thin in the NHL, or "thinner" than other eras. Lidstrom's is just one of those eras. Not sure how you don't see this. It isn't something to take away from Nik, but when push comes to shove and you remember how much more competition Bourque had, it does count.

Yes, Bourque was 40 in 2001 and was rejuvenated on a stacked Avs team, finishing second to Lidstrom while Pronger was injured. You can use that to assume that Bourque was superior in his prime but it's not really proof. Lidstrom was great at 40 as well and won the Norris. Maybe being 40 isn't as big a deal for an all-time great dman as people make it to be? If they're healthy and well conditioned then they can use their careers worth of experience to still dominate. MacInnis and Chelios both had some great seasons around that age as well. I'm more prone to giving them credit for it then pointing to how much better they were when they were at 30. It sure seems like a popular way to discredit younger players though

But it is worth noting that MacInnis, Chelios and Bourque all were better in their 20s/early 30s than at 40. All were 1st team all-stars around 40. Lidstrom was the Norris winner all those years. I'm just saying, you would want a 1990 Bourque who finished 2nd in a controversial Hart trophy vote to the greatest season none other than Mark Messier had over a 2001 Bourque. I haven't seen a defenseman have a season as good as Bourque did in 1990 and around that time. Not even Pronger in 2000, although that was great. Not Lidstrom either. Not Keith. Not Chara. Not even Coffey post 1990 or Leetch or Chelios. It doesn't change anything about Lidstrom, it is just the fact that people who have watched hockey for a long time have seen players do it better. Bourque is one of the few who I've seen that has. Gosh, isn't that pretty high praise instead of pretending it isn't true?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Nope, you just got caught - time to backpeddle.

Lidstrom handled the puck an awful lot in breakouts and transition as well. Didn't you watch him play? Read Bowman's comments because that's exactly what I remember. He wasn't always passing it from behind his net you know. How do you think he racked up over 1,000 assists?

A) Sorry, nice try though. I spelled it out pretty clearly.

B) I never said Lindstrom never controlled the puck, I SAID...he didn't do it close to as much or close to as effectively as the others mentions. Keep trying this narrow-minded literal approach though, its really working

C) Again...Lindstrom got the vast majority of his points on the PP. That's not my opinion, that is actually a fact my friend.

 

[danincanada]

A) Sorry, nice try though. I spelled it out pretty clearly.

B) I never said Lindstrom never controlled the puck, I SAID...he didn't do it close to as much or close to as effectively as the others mentions. Keep trying this narrow-minded literal approach though, its really working

C) Again...Lindstrom got the vast majority of his points on the PP. That's not my opinion, that is actually a fact my friend.

You're not spelling anything out clearly right now because you keep typing Lindstrom.

Lidstrom's offensive stats are far higher than Harvey's, whether raw or adjusted. I always admitted Bourque was more offensive than Lidstrom because of this, even though he played in a more offensive era. It's your turn to admit the same with Harvey but you refuse to. It clearly shows an inconsistency and possible bias.

They didn't have powerplays back in Harvey's time?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

C) Again...Lindstrom got the vast majority of his points on the PP. That's not my opinion, that is actually a fact my friend.

51.66% is not a vast majority, it's quite a slim majority. Also, all high-scoring defencemen get a large proportion of their points on the PP.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

They didn't have powerplays back in Harvey's time?

They sure did! Data from the Hockey Summary Project tells us that from 1952/53 through the end of his career, of the 398 points scored by Doug Harvey, 199 were on the power-play. So that's 50%, compared to 51.6% for Lidstrom.

 

[danincanada]

Bourque rushed the puck up the ice and carried the play to a much larger degree than Lidstrom did. Harvey, and the other pioneer of rushing defensemen in Red Kelly did it better too. Nothing against Lidstrom, he produced offensively alright, but you never would have thought he was better "offensively" than them. Bourque was at times the offense that drove the engine on Boston. In fact, many times the OFFENSE lived or died because of him. That's an awfully big compliment for a defenseman isn't it? Bourque had more tools offensively than Lidstrom and this really isn't much of a debate. This is why among other things he gets ranked higher.

Than why does Lidstrom have far better offensive numbers, whether raw or adjusted? You are making this claim of Harvey rushing the puck and controlling the play but from the numbers it appears it didn't result in as much offense as Lidstrom's "lesser skills" in this regard.

Lidstrom was not going against a full throttle Leetch. I don't think personally we saw that with him again after 1997. Leetch had a decade of being an elite defender, and while he was still "good" after that it wasn't the same.

Leetch was still only 29 then. The DPE was also a factor that reduced the effictiveness of his style.

And as I said before, there aren't many more truly "great" defenders than in past years. Adding 10 teams doesn't mean you'll get 10 more elite defenders. It probably means you'll get more run of the mill types. How does it affect the truly elite when there are more Don Sweeney's in the NHL? It means nothing for Norris voting. That's all I am saying.

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

Alright, does Harvey win 7 Norris Trophies in the 1980s and 1990s? That would be very difficult to duplicate that. Would he win 7 in Lidstrom's era? I think he would. It just featured less competition. More teams or not I think you get stuck on that far too much. Hockey was hockey, 21 teams 14 teams or 30. What counts more is the guys you went up against. Harvey had Kelly who was the biggest threat to him. I'll give you that, only Tom Johnson interrupted Harvey's Norris streak. But if I can give you that how can you not see that Lidstrom for starters did not have a Kelly to compete with him, and secondly the ones competing with him (Niedermayer, an oft injured Pronger, Blake and Chara) lag behind in other eras. They just do, despite the fact they are all going to be in the HHOF. Put it this way, the player who finished 2nd in Norris voting in 2008 to Lidstrom was Dion Phaneuf. There are times when the defenders are thin in the NHL, or "thinner" than other eras. Lidstrom's is just one of those eras. Not sure how you don't see this. It isn't something to take away from Nik, but when push comes to shove and you remember how much more competition Bourque had, it does count.

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

But it is worth noting that MacInnis, Chelios and Bourque all were better in their 20s/early 30s than at 40. All were 1st team all-stars around 40. Lidstrom was the Norris winner all those years. I'm just saying, you would want a 1990 Bourque who finished 2nd in a controversial Hart trophy vote to the greatest season none other than Mark Messier had over a 2001 Bourque. I haven't seen a defenseman have a season as good as Bourque did in 1990 and around that time. Not even Pronger in 2000, although that was great. Not Lidstrom either. Not Keith. Not Chara. Not even Coffey post 1990 or Leetch or Chelios. It doesn't change anything about Lidstrom, it is just the fact that people who have watched hockey for a long time have seen players do it better. Bourque is one of the few who I've seen that has. Gosh, isn't that pretty high praise instead of pretending it isn't true?

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

 

[tarheelhockey]

Bourque rushed the puck up the ice and carried the play to a much larger degree than Lidstrom did. Harvey, and the other pioneer of rushing defensemen in Red Kelly did it better too. Nothing against Lidstrom, he produced offensively alright, but you never would have thought he was better "offensively" than them. Bourque was at times the offense that drove the engine on Boston. In fact, many times the OFFENSE lived or died because of him. That's an awfully big compliment for a defenseman isn't it? Bourque had more tools offensively than Lidstrom and this really isn't much of a debate. This is why among other things he gets ranked higher.

I agree with all that, I was just pointing out that the consensus about Harvey's all-time ranking around here is... fuzzy, I guess. He's agreed upon as a top-5 guy, but when it comes down to really hammering out the details the conversation tends to drift into the realm of lore and intangibles. I'm not sure we've ever really nailed down where he ranks when compared directly to Bourque (the Defensemen project had it as a very narrowly broken tie in Harvey's favor) and Lidstrom (which I suspect is just as contentious).

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

I think this argument is an utter fallacy TBH.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I think this argument is an utter fallacy TBH.

I think it's fair to say it's what matters to many fans, at least, though I don't know if it's most.

As for players, who knows? Sidney Crosby doesn't make $12 million per year for playing in the playoffs, so I would think he cares about the regular season a great deal.

But what I think is your overall point, that the importance of the playoffs is often greatly overstated, I agree with.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did I see the claim that Lidstrom's numbers were better than Red Kelly's adjusted for era? Are you making that up or do you have numbers to back it up? Considering Kelly was top 10 in NHL scoring 3 times as a defenseman, I'm really curious to see what kind of dopey "adjusted scoring" formula would have him below Lidstrom in terms of offense

Edit: Also, why are you guys even talking about Lidstrom in this thread?

 

[danincanada]

Did I see the claim that Lidstrom's numbers were better than Red Kelly's adjusted for era? Are you making that up or do you have numbers to back it up? Considering Kelly was top 10 in NHL scoring 3 times as a defenseman, I'm really curious to see what kind of dopey "adjusted scoring" formula would have him below Lidstrom in terms of offense

If you're refering to my post then I was talking about Harvey, not Kelly. I never compared Lidstrom with Kelly in this thread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you're refering to my post then I was talking about Harvey, not Kelly. I never compared Lidstrom with Kelly in this thread.

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

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

 

[danincanada]

I think it's fair to say it's what matters to many fans, at least, though I don't know if it's most.

As for players, who knows? Sidney Crosby doesn't make $12 million per year for playing in the playoffs, so I would think he cares about the regular season a great deal.

But what I think is your overall point, that the importance of the playoffs is often greatly overstated, I agree with.

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

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

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

 

[Iain Fyffe]

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

That's great. The fact that the national competitions for the world's most popular sport don't use such a system has no effect on this idea that there's only one right way to think about it?

If a player is more concerned about money then it will inevitably show in his play, especially when the playoffs start.

Whoops. Who said more concerned? Just that the idea players should not care about the regular season seems untenable.

The playoffs is what separates the men from the boys.

That's right. The playoffs are the time that the enforcers sit in the pressbox. Must mean they're not real men, eh?

 

[danincanada]

I think this argument is an utter fallacy TBH.

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

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

 

[danincanada]

That's great. The fact that the national competitions for the world's most popular sport don't use such a system has no effect on this idea that there's only one right way to think about it?

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

Whoops. Who said more concerned? Just that the idea players should not care about the regular season seems untenable.

However you want to say it, players should strive towards winning in the playoffs, not just having a great season.

That's right. The playoffs are the time that the enforcers sit in the pressbox. Must mean they're not real men, eh?

That's not at all what I meant. It's not about fighting, it's about the effort and grit to complete the grind of the playoffs on top. To perform your best at the most crucial and intense time and outcompete the other team/player with your hockey skills.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You're not spelling anything out clearly right now because you keep typing Lindstrom.

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

Lidstrom's offensive stats are far higher than Harvey's, whether raw or adjusted.

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

I always admitted Bourque was more offensive than Lidstrom because of this, even though he played in a more offensive era.

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

It's your turn to admit the same with Harvey but you refuse to. It clearly shows an inconsistency and possible bias.

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

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

They didn't have powerplays back in Harvey's time?

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