Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

[tarheelhockey]

Fire away.

Click to read more...

 

[unknown33]

What's the purpose of that Top Defensemen project again ...?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

From Round 1 of the HOH Top Defenseman Project:

Why Doug Harvey is the Second Best Defenseman of All-Time

Why do many of us rank Doug Harvey the second best defenseman of all-time? If you count the number of elite seasons a player had, he falls below several of the defensemen listed here. But then so does Bobby Orr.

(Much of the information presented is courtesy of EagleBelfour's bio)

I. He is often considered the best defensive defenseman of all time

-He is rated the top defensive defenseman of all-time in the book Hockey's 100 by Stan Fischler

-Rated the best defensive defenseman of the 1950s by Ultimate Hockey

The first key to Doug's success was he was a flawless defender. Doug was so superb in one on one defensive battles that he would routinely steal the puck off the attacker as though he were picking cherries. He would rarely be beaten, and his teammates knew it.

-Several older posters on the HOH board have said that Harvey is the best defensive defenseman they have ever seen. (I'd find specific quotes, but the search function is broken. I know Dark Shadows is one of them, though).

II. By all accounts, he is second only to Bobby Orr in his ability to control the pace of a hockey game in all three zones. (And some believe he was Orr's equal in this)

Harvey controlled the game like Orr did, but where Orr controlled it by carrying the puck, by acting as a forward, Harvey would slow the pace down, then pick it up. He could control the game and was the epitome of the brilliant general on the blueline.

Dick Irvin very quickly discovered Harvey's greatest skill – the ability to control the temp of a game. Methodically, Doug carried the puck, at his own speed, surveying the ice landscape before he committed to any play. At first, it drove his coach and teammates to distraction, until they learned that there was method to Harvey's madness – the other team couldn't score if Doug controlled the puck.

Doug Harvey was the first defenseman in NHL history who ''quarterbacked'' his team. Playing from the blueline, Harvey would orchestrate the Canadiens’ style of ''fire wagon hockey'' with his ability to frame accurate passes. Not only was his passing a sight to behold but he could control game as he pleased.

Doug Harvey was the best defenseman in hockey during his heydays, and he ranks among the greatest of all time. He could check, block shots, rush the puck, stickhandle, and pass, but what made him truly unique was the way he could combine his skills to control the pace of the game.

Harvey was the Habs’ general, directing play, controlling pace, passing with uncanny accuracy, and busting the head of anyone who got in the way of him or his teammates.

Even more impressive was Doug's ability with the puck. He would rarely simply dump the puck out of the zone. He would be able to gain control of the puck and never give it up. At first he would drive fans and coaches crazy, as he wandered in front of the net with fore-checkers zooming in, but more often than not he would remain calm, and in an unhurried fashion spot a streaking forward with a pinpoint pass. Because of t his uncanny ability Montreal's superstar forwards could afford stay high and loosen up on their backchecking duties.
...

Unlike a Bobby Orr or Paul Coffey, Doug wouldn't rush the puck out of his own zone. His thinking was the puck can move faster than any player on the ice, so why not utilize that as a tactic? He had this unique ability to draw in a forechecker which would then open up more ice for his teammates. [...] Harvey would plant a perfect pass to one of his forwards, creating an odd-man rush. In doing so, Harvey controlled the game perhaps better than any player in history. More often than not he would rag the puck to slow the game down, but he also knew exactly when to catch the other team by surprise with a perfectly placed pass into an open lane.

Doug Harvey is perhaps the greatest all-around defenseman of all time. He was not as offensively gifted as Bobby Orr but controlled in much the same degree if only a contrasting style. He was not as hard hitting as Eddie Shore, but he was known as one of the most physical yet clean defenders of his time.

His masterful stickhandling allowed him to control the puck for as long as he wished. It was often to the dismay of fans, coaches and opponents, who watched helplessly as the defenseman took chances that others dared not take, rarely being caught out of position or making a costly mistake.

When, inevitably, Harvey got hold of the puck, opponents feared his passing touch and peeled back. The Canadiens' forwards, secure in the knowledge that Harvey would be beaten very rarely, were afforded the luxury of hanging higher in the defensive zone or even lurking in neutral ice. Harvey's natural skills bought him more room and, unimpeded by forecheckers (Harvey would quickly lose anyone who challenged him), he was free to bring the puck up ice. "He was like a big glider moving with the puck," remembered television analyst Howie Meeker, a veteran of the Harvey era. "He controlled the play so well, his forwards could cheat."

'And of course Harvey, we always thought that without Harvey on that team we could beat Montreal because he really was controlling the puck back on that blueline. He'd pick it up and take his time, get it out, move it out, get the guy in the open and throw it to him and away they'd go. To me, he was one of the greatest defenceman to ever play

All I know is that the son of a gun came out of nowhere to become the biggest thorn in the side of the Leafs in our glory days. He was an early Bobby Orr, except he did it at semi-slow motion. You always knew what was coming - you could see it happening - but you couldn't do anything about it

Doug played defense in a rocking chair

III. Was Harvey (like Lidstrom) slow to be recognized due to his style of play?

Defenseman Doug Harvey was so laconic, so calmly sure of himself, that he executed plays of extreme complexity with consummate ease. Lacking the Flamboyance of Eddie Shore or other Hall of Fame defensemen, Harvey was slow to receive the recognition he deserved. "Often, Harvey's cool was mistaken for disinterest," said author John Greenfield. "Actually it was the result of an always calculating concentration."

No player put my heart in my mouth as often as Doug. But I learned to swallow in silence. His style was casual, but it worked. He made few mistakes, and, ninety-nine percent of the time correctly anticipated the play or pass.

Who's Who in Hockey

 

[tarheelhockey]

What's the purpose of that Top Defensemen project again ...?

Lidstrom vs. Harvey was not discussed in detail. We had detailed comparisons of Shore and Harvey, Lidstrom and Bourque, and Lidstrom and Potvin. The latter two have spawned long, intensely-debated threads of their own. In the Bourque vs Lidstrom thread, I believe three different people expressed a desire to compare Lidstrom and Harvey head-to-head.

Bourque vs Lidstrom has probably been the most intensely-debated comparison on the board lately, similar to Brodeur vs Roy not so long ago, but IMO the voting has made it pretty clear that Bourque is the consensus choice. I believe that Lidstrom has a better chance at leapfrogging Harvey.

So here we are.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The short version: Harvey dominates his competition to a greater extent than Lidstom or Bourque. Harvey easily surpassed Red Kelly, one of the most dominant defensemen ever - dominating him to a greater degree than Bourque ever dominated Chelios or Leetch. Then for almost a decade, Harvey easily won the Norris ever season except the one he was injured (when he finished 4th).

 

[danincanada]

The short version: Harvey dominates his competition to a greater extent than Lidstom or Bourque. Harvey easily surpassed Red Kelly, one of the most dominant defensemen ever - dominating him to a greater degree than Bourque ever dominated Chelios or Leetch. Then for almost a decade, Harvey easily won the Norris ever season except the one he was injured (when he finished 4th).

Does who their competition was have any bearing on these debates?

I chose 31 cause it seemed to make sense and these guys were all in their primes at that point. Obviously many of the countries listed are from immigrants who were born elsewhere but were raised and trained in hockey playing nations.

Origin of NHL players when Harvey was 31 in 1955:

Canada 155 players
USA 2 players
Wales 1 player

Origin of NHL players when Bourque was 31 in 1991:

Canada 533
Czech. 23
England 1
Finland 12
Formosa 1
France 1
Jamaica 1
N.Ireland 1
Scotland 1
South Korea 1
Sweden 17
Switz. 1
USA 130
USSR 15
West Germany 3

Origin on NHL players when Lidstrom was 31 in 2001:

Brazil 1
Brunei 1
Canada 530
Czech. 107
England 1
Finland 33
N.Ireland 1
Norway 2
Poland 3
Scotland 1
Sweden 47
Switz. 3
Tanzania 1
USA 148
USSR 91
Germany 5

Unless someone really believes it wouldn't be harder to dominate ones peers with more competition from other countries then I don't see how this is fair to either Lidstrom or Bourque.

Not only that but I think it would be more comfortable only playing against players from the same country since they would likely play a similar style and therefore would be more predictable. In todays NHL it's a mix and one minute a Russian could be rushing the puck down the wing and the next it could be his Finnish or American linemate. I just don't see how Harvey wins out in this debate unless he gets a whole bunch of credit for being first...but that would be akin to saying Les Paul is a greater guitarist than Jimi Hendrix just because he was first and designed guitars. I don't buy it, I want to know who was actually the better athlete.

 

[lolwut]

I have often wondered this. Why do most rank Bourque behind him yet over Lidstrom? The same arguments for placing Borque over Lidstrom should then apply to Harvey, since Lidstrom and Harvey are basically mirror images of each other, although Lidstrom seems to have a slight edge on him in accolades and longevity.
imo nostalgia seems to being playing a large roll in ranking defensmen.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Origin of NHL players when Harvey was 31 in 1955:

Canada 155 players
USA 2 players
Wales 1 player

Origin of NHL players when Bourque was 31 in 1991:

Canada 533
Czech. 23
Finland 12
Sweden 17
USA 130
USSR 15

Origin on NHL players when Lidstrom was 31 in 2001:

Canada 530
Czech. 107
Finland 33
Sweden 47
USA 148
USSR 91

This is just a crunched-down version of the lists above, with the major hockey powers represented. It doesn't matter much if there was 1 guy from Scotland and 1 guy from Jamaica, does it?

And, to adjust for changes in the size of the league, here are ratios of non-Canadians-per-Canadian.

Origin of NHL players when Harvey was 31 in 1955:

USA - 77.5

Origin of NHL players when Bourque was 31 in 1991:

USA 130 - 4.1
Czech. - 23.2
Sweden - 31.4
USSR 15 - 35.5
Finland - 44.4
West Germany - 177.6

Origin on NHL players when Lidstrom was 31 in 2001:

USA 148 - 3.6
Czech. - 5.0
USSR 91 - 5.8
Sweden - 11.2
Finland - 16.0
Other - 40.7

 

[Epsilon]

I have often wondered this. Why do most rank Bourque behind him yet over Lidstrom? The same arguments for placing Borque over Lidstrom should then apply to Harvey, since Lidstrom and Harvey are basically mirror images of each other, although Lidstrom seems to have a slight edge on him in accolades and longevity.
imo nostalgia seems to being playing a large roll in ranking defensmen.

That's what I asked in the other thread.

This topic has already been done to death, I'd like to see a Bourque vs. Harvey thread though where the level of minuta is as detailed as in the Bourque vs. Lidstrom ones.

 

[unknown33]

I believe that Lidstrom has a better chance at leapfrogging Harvey.

Why? He can't even get past Bourque who is behind Harvey for the majority of voters.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have often wondered this. Why do most rank Bourque behind him yet over Lidstrom? The same arguments for placing Borque over Lidstrom should then apply to Harvey, since Lidstrom and Harvey are basically mirror images of each other, although Lidstrom seems to have a slight edge on him in accolades and longevity.
imo nostalgia seems to being playing a large roll in ranking defensmen.

The argument for Harvey is that he flat out peaked higher for an extended period of time than Bourque or Lidstrom, particularly in his ability to control the pace of the game.

If anything Bourque is more similar to Harvey than Lidstrom is to Harvey. Bourque could skate and push the pace but from about his fifth year he was all about controlling the game. Lidstrom plays a quiet style as well but does not try to control the game in all three zones. Actually I think Larry Murphy is the best comparison for Harvey. No I am not saying Murphy is close or worthy in terms of results but perhaps is the most similar to Harvey in style.

IMO, Harvey is closer to Lidstrom than Bourque in terms of style. Harvey played conservative defense-first hockey at even strength, didn't join the rush that often, but spearheaded the transition. He racked up a large portion of his points by QBing the powerplay.

Harvey was a lot more physical than Lidstrom though.

I don't think Murphy was a good enough puck handler/skater to be compared to Harvey.

 

[danincanada]

This is just a crunched-down version of the lists above, with the major hockey powers represented. It doesn't matter much if there was 1 guy from Scotland and 1 guy from Jamaica, does it?

That's fine but you might upset the Swiss, German, Norweigen and Polish hockey players out there. Now we have Austria, Slovenia, Latvia and Denmark being represented as well.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Why? He can't even get past Bourque who is behind Harvey for the majority of voters.

Because, as pointed out upthread, a lot of the arguments in favor of Bourque over Lidstrom could also apply to Harvey. In my opinion, Bourque is clear-cut over Lidstrom... the gap is not huge but it's indisputable. That might not be the case with Harvey, who played a similar style on similar teams but in a different era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's fine but you might upset the Swiss, German, Norweigen and Polish hockey players out there.

Well there's only 13 of them so they can come and get me

But for the sake of inclusion, I'll just put an "other" category comprising the nations with 2 or more. That will eliminate the Owen Nolan cases.

 

[lolwut]

If anything Bourque is more similar to Harvey than Lidstrom is to Harvey. Bourque could skate and push the pace but from about his fifth year he was all about controlling the game. Lidstrom plays a quiet style as well but does not try to control the game in all three zones. Actually I think Larry Murphy is the best comparison for Harvey. No I am not saying Murphy is close or worthy in terms of results but perhaps is the most similar to Harvey in style.

I would have to disagree. Harvey and Lidstrom are the only two defensmen that are unanimously considered both the best defensively and offensively of their careers.

 

[Reds4Life]

I'd say Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom are so close it is not even funny. Tough to put them in order IMHO.

 

[lolwut]

The argument for Harvey is that he flat out peaked higher for an extended period of time.

Thats the #1 argument for ranking Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. (not so much higher but longer). This argument applies even more so to Bourque over Harvey. At overall peak Harvy and Lidstrom are about dead even and both ahead of Bourque.

 

[Hobnobs]

This thread will confuse Rhiessan and Tarheel as they cant use the team strength argument against Lidström anymore.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just a suggestion, let's keep this between Lidstrom and Harvey. We already have a thread for that other guy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

This thread will confuse Rhiessan and Tarheel as they cant use the team strength argument against Lidström anymore.

Why do you think I made the thread? I'm interested in seeing the arguments, not rallying support for "my guy" to win everything.

I've said it several times now: I'm open to putting Lidstrom over Harvey if the argument is there and not due to boosterism.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thats the #1 argument for ranking Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. (not so much higher but longer). This argument applies even more so to Bourque over Harvey. At overall peak Harvy and Lidstrom are about dead even and both ahead of Bourque.

That's your opinion.

 

[Dark Shadows]

From Round 1 of the HOH Top Defenseman Project:

Why Doug Harvey is the Second Best Defenseman of All-Time

Why do many of us rank Doug Harvey the second best defenseman of all-time? If you count the number of elite seasons a player had, he falls below several of the defensemen listed here. But then so does Bobby Orr.

(Much of the information presented is courtesy of EagleBelfour's bio)

I. He is often considered the best defensive defenseman of all time

-He is rated the top defensive defenseman of all-time in the book Hockey's 100 by Stan Fischler

-Rated the best defensive defenseman of the 1950s by Ultimate Hockey



-Several older posters on the HOH board have said that Harvey is the best defensive defenseman they have ever seen. (I'd find specific quotes, but the search function is broken. I know Dark Shadows is one of them, though).

II. By all accounts, he is second only to Bobby Orr in his ability to control the pace of a hockey game in all three zones. (And some believe he was Orr's equal in this)























III. Was Harvey (like Lidstrom) slow to be recognized due to his style of play?





Who's Who in Hockey

Excellent summary. Since I hold Bourque over Lidstrom, Ill add my past comments regarding Harvey vs Bourque as to why I take Harvey over him

Bourque, while one of my favorite players, just is not at Harvey's level. Harvey's peak was ridiculous. He was THE best defensive defenseman and Penalty killer ever to lace up the skates and was also the second best offensively at the same time(Red Kelly taking a slight lead there).

You want to compare their competition for the Norris trophy? Bourque's field was larger, while Harvey's had Red Kelly(Who was better than any of Bourque's top competition), followed by Gadsby, a guy who rightfully ranks ahead of many of Bourque's top competition. Gadsby is ahead of Macinnis, Leetch, Stevens, Langway, Howe, etc, while Kelly at his best was equal to or better than Potvin, Robinson, Chelios or Coffey. Had the Norris existed in 52-53, Harvey would have an 8th to add to his collection.

Harvey's competition was very stiff. Trying to imply he had easy competition is wrong.

Harvey was, in my opinion, the most important player on that Habs dynasty while he was there. He was certainly their best playoff performer. Bourque was no playoff slouch himself, but compared to Harvey? He just doesn't compare. Few players do.
Hockey Outsider did a graph regarding how much the Habs scoring went up or down during their cup winning years, and I was no surprise that Harvey's numbers jumped through the roof in those years.
Offensive Production: regular season PPG vs playoffs PPG on the 11 Stanley Cup winning teams
Minimum 250 RS games and 40 PO games

Player|RegSeason|Playoffs|%Change
Doug Harvey | 0.56 | 0.82 | 46.4
J.C. Tremblay | 0.52 | 0.75 | 44.2
Bernie Geoffrion | 1.11 | 1.39 | 25.2
Dickie Moore | 1.03 | 1.16 | 12.6
Maurice Richard | 0.94 | 1.05 | 11.7
Yvan Cournoyer | 0.88 | 0.94 | 6.8
Jacques Lemaire | 0.86 | 0.91 | 5.8
Jacques Laperriere | 0.41 | 0.43 | 4.9
Jean Beliveau | 1.16 | 1.19 | 2.6
Terry Harper | 0.19 | 0.18 | -5.3
Ralph Backstrom | 0.6 | 0.54 | -10
Henri Richard | 0.83 | 0.74 | -10.8
Ted Harris | 0.28 | 0.24 | -14.3
Claude Provost | 0.62 | 0.51 | -17.7
John Ferguson | 0.56 | 0.46 | -17.9
Bobby Rousseau | 0.91 | 0.64 | -29.7
Tom Johnson | 0.35 | 0.24 | -31.4
Don Marshall | 0.4 | 0.27 | -32.5
Jean-Guy Talbot | 0.27 | 0.18 | -33.3
Claude Larose | 0.44 | 0.25 | -43.2
Bob Turner | 0.18 | 0.09 | -50

Bourque's longevity edge vs the Peak edge and playoff edge Harvey possesses does not close the gap in my opinion.

 

[lolwut]

Lidstrom (to date)
Norris-7
NHL 1st Team-11
NHL 2nd Team-2
Conn Smythe-1
All Rookie Team 1st

Harvey
Norris-7
NHL 1st Team-10
NHL 2nd Team-1
Conn Smythe-0
All Rookie Team 1st (didn't exist at the time but its safe to say he wouldn't of made it)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Plus

Excellent summary. Since I hold Bourque over Lidstrom, Ill add my past comments regarding Harvey vs Bourque as to why I take Harvey over him

You also have to factor in that Doug Harvey, during the fifties, played against the other teams best offensive players during the playoffs and was instrumental in shutting them down.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for posting, Dark Shadows. Especially since I mentioned you by name in the poast.

Had the Norris existed in 52-53, Harvey would have an 8th to add to his collection.

I don't think this is true, actually. Red Kelly was dominating the All Star voting for several years prior to the first Norris.

Why do you think Gadsby was better than Leetch, Stevens, or MacInnis? Regardless, I do think it is noteworthy that other defensemen like Leetch were able to beat out Ray Bourque on occasion, while Gadsby wasn't ever really close to beating out Harvey except the season Harvey was injured.