You can put it that way as well.
The point is that if you change the game and its followed in the future it does inprove your historical relevance and importance to the sport but it does not make you a BETTER player.
Someone who would never have played on high level this game could still have caused evolution to the sport and it woudnt make him a better player but a more important person to the sport.
I said that even trophy counting is more important than the "changing the game" but i never said who wins trophy counting race
There is other reasons why i consider both Bourque and Lidstrom above Harvey. Bourque would lose this badly if that would be my criteria..
However from the changing the game aspect when you do it one usually does it to the "correct" direction and is master in it so the player does get the "plus sides" from this great job to the "better player competition" as well but that must be evaluated strickly on how good the player is and forget the "60 years later imapct on junior ice hockey part". That belongs the the discussion of "great icehockey personalities of all times".