Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

Status
Not open for further replies.

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Calculations

They typically induct 4 players per year now. In the mid to late 90's they cut that down for a few years because they inducted so many prior, as if they ran out of worthy players. Flaman being inducted in '90, which was 30 years after he retired points to this. If he took 30 years to induct then why do you feel Zubov and/or Gonchar will never be inducted?

You know the pace was far slower during Flaman's era and the shifts were far longer as well. Only top defenseman with extreme endurance can handle 30 minutes a game in the modern era and those playoff runs proved Zubov and Gonchar were defensively responsible.

The talent stream is not shallow in the modern era, it is several times larger than the 06 at least. This is a fact you will have to come to grips with eventually. "Not worth keeping" players, as you state, just shows there are always new waves of players coming up. More than the O6 era because it's not just central Canada feeding the NHL anymore, is it?

Zubov and Gonchar. Each was slightly better than Andrei Markov. NOT a HHOF level.Fern Flaman was 3-6th amongst NHL defencemen for app 10 years.Zubov had a stretch of < 28 games playing just over 30 minutes per game including overtime. Fern Flaman played first pairing minutes, 28-35 minutes per game, 70 game schedule for app 10 seasons.

Your own calculations show that the talent pool is shallow. Four HHOF inductees over an elite player's career, usually at least 15 seasons, represents app 60 HHOF quality elite players during any given season. NHL features 30 teams so roughly 2 per teams. O6 era even with 30 elite HHOF players any given season yields an average of 5 per team. Five per team represents more depth than two two per team.

My point was about "Worth Keeping" players. NHL is talking about an expansion to 32 teams. Possible NHL expansion draft scenarios:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/expansion-draft-2017-which-players-might-get-shipped-to-vegas/

Regardless of the scenario or the calculation the existing 30 NHL teams do not want at least half of their veteran players nor do they want 25% of their Salary Cap. Over 50% of the NHL team roster of 23 is not "Worth Keeping". Never so low in the history of NHL competition. Maybe enough for a solid 14 team NHL. Hardly a sign of the depth you claim exists.

In fact if the talent pool was as deep as you claim it is would an NHL expansion draft be necessary for the upcoming expansion?
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Athletes in the Soviet Union and Europe especially hockey players had distinct advantages that did not make the NHL option attractive.

Compared to other workers with at best a secondary school education, the NHL option was attractive short term. Any hockey player in Canada and the USA with a post secondary education had many more attractive work options.

No one is disputing that there were less reasons for Soviets to play in the NHL back then. The amount of money NHLers can make now is just one more reason why more people are striving to become elite players.

As interesting as it is I'm not sure why you posted this here because you've just displayed one of the many reasons why there were less elite players in the NHL back in the O6. Are you finally agreeing with me?
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Not sure you want point to '09 as any proof of Gonchar's defensive reliability. First of all, everyone should be pretty aware that Scuderi and Gill took all the hardest defensive assignments before even looking at the numbers. And "as it turns out", Gonchar not only faced not only really low "quality of competition", he also started in the offensive zone FAR more often than the other regular defensemen. He basically had his minutes managed to give him the most opportunities to generate offense with guys like Crosby (scope out his zone starts, etc). That he was "more than adequate" defensively in such a role is hardly a cap tip to him - especially considering the subjects of this conversation.

I always thought he was at his best on both sides of the puck while still on a weak string of teams in Washington, anyway.

I pointed to one example but it applies to most of Gonchar's career. He wasn't a shutdown guy by any means but his overall play was fine. He was strong enough to play the biggest minutes on that Pens team and kill penalties. If you prefer his play with the Caps then you're basically agreeing with me.

He was elite offensively though while Flaman averaged 20 adjusted points per a 70 game season. Gonchar's defensive play was far better than Flaman's offensive play so one has to make him appear to be a train wreck defensively, which he wasn't, to boost Flaman.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Zubov and Gonchar. Each was slightly better than Andrei Markov. NOT a HHOF level.Fern Flaman was 3-6th amongst NHL defencemen for app 10 years.Zubov had a stretch of < 28 games playing just over 30 minutes per game including overtime. Fern Flaman played first pairing minutes, 28-35 minutes per game, 70 game schedule for app 10 seasons.

Since you ignored it the first time, you know the O6 had really long shifts and the pace was much slower. Therefore, more ice-time is not proof that Flaman was better. He also got to play in a much smaller league with far less options for who the best defenseman was and the league only drew from central Canada. It's not an apples to apples comparison. This fact shouldn't need to be repeated over and over again.

Your own calculations show that the talent pool is shallow. Four HHOF inductees over an elite player's career, usually at least 15 seasons, represents app 60 HHOF quality elite players during any given season. NHL features 30 teams so roughly 2 per teams. O6 era even with 30 elite HHOF players any given season yields an average of 5 per team. Five per team represents more depth than two two per team.

I didn't make a calculation, I made an obvious point of reasoning that the HHOF isn't inducting more players now even though the amount of truly elite players has grown in hockey, probably substantially as in multiple times. This means we can't just point to anyone who made it into the HHOF when there were less players to choose from and say "ha! he was better than a modern player who has to wait, or may never get inducted." The HOF is far from fallible anyways so unless you believe Housely was a better player than Makarov then I wouldn't base everything on it.

I know you can't accept this reasoning regarding the number of truly elite players growing in numbers because it would severely damage your case for Harvey over Lidstrom as well so I'm anticipating you will misunderstand it again or point to reasons why the Soviets didn't want to come over in 1957.

My point was about "Worth Keeping" players. NHL is talking about an expansion to 32 teams. Possible NHL expansion draft scenarios:

http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/expansion-draft-2017-which-players-might-get-shipped-to-vegas/

Regardless of the scenario or the calculation the existing 30 NHL teams do not want at least half of their veteran players nor do they want 25% of their Salary Cap. Over 50% of the NHL team roster of 23 is not "Worth Keeping". Never so low in the history of NHL competition. Maybe enough for a solid 14 team NHL. Hardly a sign of the depth you claim exists.

In fact if the talent pool was as deep as you claim it is would an NHL expansion draft be necessary for the upcoming expansion?

I'm not explaining to you how the cap affects roster decisions in the league now or why they would have an expansion draft if they add more teams. As a hockey fan who follows the current league you should already know this. It's a silly argument to try to make.
 

feffan

Registered User
Sep 9, 2010
1,949
146
Malmö
Zubov and Gonchar. Each was slightly better than Andrei Markov. NOT a HHOF level.Fern Flaman was 3-6th amongst NHL defencemen for app 10 years.Zubov had a stretch of < 28 games playing just over 30 minutes per game including overtime. Fern Flaman played first pairing minutes, 28-35 minutes per game, 70 game schedule for app 10 seasons.

That´s selling them short to say the least. Kaberle was slightly better than players like Markov and Seabrook. That´s an probable 100-200 best defencemen ever. Gonchar and Zubov sure were on another level than all three those. They have more to do with Rob Blake and Larry Murphy than Kaberle and Markov on ranknings. (And to me both is a clear step above Housley, as he is bound to come up...). For that mather, outside maybe 2 years they were both better than Niedermayer for most of their careers.
It´s sad to say on overplayed card that I most often don´t agree with, but to me it´s quite obvious that an player with Zubovs career, numbers, norris-voting and 2 SC as an canadian would have been in the HHOF his first year available. That applies to Gonchar as well in some years. Both have also been the no1 defenceman on Stanley Cup winners. Zubov in 99 and Gonchar in 09, with a couple of great deep runs each outside that. Something that seemes to Gonchar ranks 16 and Zubov 19 with amongst both points ever as defencemen. Only Gary Suter and Doug Wilson, who both got to play their primes in the high flying 80´s instead of the DPE, are the only ones above them that is not in the HHOF. And both became good all round players as they got older. They are to me obvious HHOF:ers with the standard that is set.

And Flaman was named to the 2nd Team All Star 3 times over a peak period off 5 years when he found his offense in his late 20´s. To me he is one of the weakest inductions. Gonchar and Zubov clearly had superior careers to me. Just not based on that of course, but I´m not gonna derail this thread more than needed.

I understand Flaman is an fan favoruite in Boston and loved by others that saw him because he was an tough son of a b-tch. And I also understand that Zubov, Gonchar and him all could be argued somewhere between 40 and 80 best defencemen ever without an real bad argument and by what "taste" you have. But to me Flaman is an 70-100 defenceman. Zubov and Gonchar are 40-70.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Hockey

No one is disputing that there were less reasons for Soviets to play in the NHL back then. The amount of money NHLers can make now is just one more reason why more people are striving to become elite players.

As interesting as it is I'm not sure why you posted this here because you've just displayed one of the many reasons why there were less elite players in the NHL back in the O6. Are you finally agreeing with me?


Athletics(hockey) and entertainment have to be viewed in terms of the world political and social situations at any given time. Something that you omit from your positions.

Athletes and entertainers at the international level appreciate their own strengths and weaknesses within the confines of their sport or entertainment niche. European hockey players who were elite at home in Europe were dominated in International tournaments by the likes of Canadian Senior players, Connie Broden, Seth Martin, J. P. Lamirande who were not willing to chase the NHL carrot. So the European players were content to stay in Europe foregoing a long shot chance at the NHL, happy for the opportunity to have a better life in their country. They saw how hard it was for Sven Tumba and the Canadian Senior talent that until 1963 was fairly successful internationally, yet seriously wanting at the NHL level until the 1967 NHL expansion. Prime example Red Berenson, dominant as a junior at the 1959 WC, hard time earning an O6 regular position with the Canadiens and Rangers. Red Berenson had no impact on the performance of elite players in the NHL during the last nine O6 seasons. Neither would have the Europeans deserving of a chance:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/berenre01.html

European hockey talent from that era may have been deserving of a chance but it was far from elite like Rudolf Nureyev in ballet circles who did defect from the Soviet Union to continue his career outside the Iron Curtain without missing a beat.

No such elite talent was available amongst European hockey players. The players realized as much, played and lived accordingly. Just as a large group of Canadian and American players made identical choices.

You are conflating the idea of the benefits of playing hockey(other sports) today with an NHL career. Two completely distinct concepts.

Today, youngsters(male and female) showing above average athletic talent in a variety of sports have more academic scholarship options, more post scholastic opportunities in the leisure time industries, sports medicine technologies, etc. They also benefit from jumping the admissions line for post secondary education. Hockey represents just a small segment of this phenomena.

Not agreeing with you at all.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Varied

Since you ignored it the first time, you know the O6 had really long shifts and the pace was much slower. Therefore, more ice-time is not proof that Flaman was better. He also got to play in a much smaller league with far less options for who the best defenseman was and the league only drew from central Canada. It's not an apples to apples comparison. This fact shouldn't need to be repeated over and over again.



I didn't make a calculation, I made an obvious point of reasoning that the HHOF isn't inducting more players now even though the amount of truly elite players has grown in hockey, probably substantially as in multiple times. This means we can't just point to anyone who made it into the HHOF when there were less players to choose from and say "ha! he was better than a modern player who has to wait, or may never get inducted." The HOF is far from fallible anyways so unless you believe Housely was a better player than Makarov then I wouldn't base everything on it.

I know you can't accept this reasoning regarding the number of truly elite players growing in numbers because it would severely damage your case for Harvey over Lidstrom as well so I'm anticipating you will misunderstand it again or point to reasons why the Soviets didn't want to come over in 1957.



I'm not explaining to you how the cap affects roster decisions in the league now or why they would have an expansion draft if they add more teams. As a hockey fan who follows the current league you should already know this. It's a silly argument to try to make.

Shift length varied in the O6 era. Function of scheduling and adjustments that resulted. Similar to today where shift length is dictated by rules - icing. Teams playing 3 games in 4 nights or 4 in 5 against rested teams went to shorter shifts. Today they rotate the spare roster players in and out of the line-up.

Fact remains in the O6 era teams played two defensive pairings due to shorter game rosters and 120 minutes of TOI available for defencemen spread over four regulars plus one spare dictated stamina and endurance.

Flaman showed that he could play against short and long shifts during his career. Modern players have shown the ability to play the short shift game only. Point you overlook.

Apples to apples. Doubt you know the difference. If you did, you would not attempt to compare a defenceman Housley to a forward Makarov like you just did.

Try calculations for the HHOF inductions. Tend to trump reasoning. The HHOF tries to represent ice hockey since 1893. First 100 seasons are represented by app. 200 players(including some quasi builders) or app. 2 per year. Today the HHOF is looking at app 4 per year. Four happens to be more than two by a multiple that reflects the modern game without downgrading elite to very good.

Having observed all the NHL expansion drafts since 1967, the next one is the first NHL expansion draft where the existing NHL teams want to unload contracts.

As for the Salary Cap, the NHLPA is well aware of the fragility of the talent, they will not step away from guaranteed contracts in favour of an open market like the NFL. The NFL, without guaranteed contracts, sees constant annual increases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary_cap

NHL had a Salary Cap in the thirties, starting with the 1932-33 season. Again the issue then was keeping talent not getting out from under non-performing contracts because there is so little talent that teams too often overpay.
 
Last edited:

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
So basically every player that played prior to the Wall coming down should be discounted and knocked down in the rankings.
Gretzky is no longer the best ever, Howe isn't even top-10 now right?
Jagr and Crosby should obviously be the #1 and #2 players of all-time now followed by Lidstrom right?
That if Gretzky played in the 50's and 60's instead of the 80's and 90's, he wouldn't be the greatest ever now?

Dan...your argument is terrible.
Not all nations contribute to the NHL pool right now and your argument would mean that if in 25 years, there is a large contribution from China, Japan and Great Britain to the NHL pool, it would mean that all players previously would need to be discounted too.

I have to ask, where do you rank Howe and Bobby Hull?

And don't bother trying to say you're ignoring me because you still feel you need an apology on an internet board.
You're ignoring me because you have no counters. No one's fooled my friend.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
So basically every player that played prior to the Wall coming down should be discounted and knocked down in the rankings.
Gretzky is no longer the best ever, Howe isn't even top-10 now right?
Jagr and Crosby should obviously be the #1 and #2 players of all-time now followed by Lidstrom right?
That if Gretzky played in the 50's and 60's instead of the 80's and 90's, he wouldn't be the greatest ever now?

Dan...your argument is terrible.
Not all nations contribute to the NHL pool right now and your argument would mean that if in 25 years, there is a large contribution from China, Japan and Great Britain to the NHL pool, it would mean that all players previously would need to be discounted too.

I have to ask, where do you rank Howe and Bobby Hull?

And don't bother trying to say you're ignoring me because you still feel you need an apology on an internet board.
You're ignoring me because you have no counters. No one's fooled my friend.

I don't how you were raised but you crossed the line for me. Not only did you insinuate that I lied and then asked for proof, which I provided, but then you didn't even acknowledge it, as if people accuse others of lying all the time. Questioning someone's honesty is not some flippant aspect of regular conversation for you, is it? I don't really want to bother with you after that but since you keep pushing...

You are giving yourself way too much credit if you think I was ignoring you because your arguments were strong. There are so many flaws and inconsistencies in them that's it's hard to cover them all now but I'll try.

First off, you actually read my posts? You respond to most of them but I don't think you read them because my opinion and how I think has been repeated numerous times here and my argument is not what you think it is and its not the one that is terrible. It's completely irrational to believe a Canadian-only composed league from the middle of the 20th century would have as many great players as a league with 50 years of added growth to the sport, and don't pretend hockey didn't grow in Canada after Harvey's era, which also had 29 of the 60 Norris finalists in a 20 year span being non-Canadians when we had zero during Harvey's career. So this is two fold; Canadian hockey grew - probably substantially - and we have all those elite non-Canadians competing as well. Pretending to compare players across these eras on a peer to peer basis like its a fair comparison is what's terrible. How do you think we should compare the modern fully integrated NHL with the O6? It's not even apples and oranges, it's Fuji apples and kumquats so weighing them equally is an injustice to those delicious Fuji's.

If the whole world took up playing hockey and it became more popular than soccer, and was given time to grow and flourish around the world, don't you think there would be a hell of a lot more truly elite talent in this new version of the NHL than now? Wouldn't that make it a bigger feat to dominate, especially if a defenseman had the same career record and list of accomplishments as Lidstrom did? If that was the case then I would rank him higher than Lidstrom. Even if he didn't do quite as well against his own peers as Lidstrom but those peers were clearly from a much larger talent pool one would have to weigh his accomplishments on a higher plain. It's not a difficult concept to understand and should be used in some way if one is going to compare players across vastly different eras. You try to portray this with Bourque and his peers all the time, believing he had more of an uphill battle, but you refuse to give Lidstrom the same reasoning versus Harvey. Instead you act as if Lidstrom had it so easy, Bourque overcame the impossible, and you don't even need to question who Harvey competed with in terms of peers. We just know the NHL only had elite Canadians born pre-baby boom. Sorry, one peer group is not like the others here. Not close actually.

Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux dominated to such a degree, and all did it with baby boomers and when at least some elite non-Canadians were present so it's not difficult to assume they were just that good. Harvey isn't in that class though, in fact even in a peer to peer comparison he and Lidstrom are neck and neck, except Lidstrom appears to actually come out on top in more metrics. That's why I say it's quite easy to go with Lidstrom over Harvey. The only way to go with Harvey is if you ignore how much the composition of the league changed. Maybe the most talented Soviets would have decreased the scoring title margins 4, 99, and 66 had some seasons but that's about as far as anyone would venture. With Harvey I don't think he faced much, and certainly not as much as Lidstrom, so adding elite non-Canadians and a larger group of elite Canadian defenders would probably reduce his dominance quite a lot and maybe he wouldn't dominate at all some seasons. This is not a fact but it's not reasonable to just assume that adding so many more elite players would have no affect on his level of dominance or how Harvey is viewed.

How many years did you try to downgrade Lidstrom for relying on the PP for points? It turns out Harvey was even more guilty of that and all you do is talk about how dominant he was on the PP, ignoring that he was tied for 4th in the chart with Horton for ES points/70 games with 19. Meanwhile Lidstrom is tied for second with 24 in his peer group, just 1 back of the leader and even trailed Pronger in terms of the PP while Harvey made all his gains there. Then you try to compare Lidstrom with guys from much higher scoring years when ES points were clearly in abundance even though it's obvious that the best way to compare him is against actual peers who also played in those same DPE seasons. So what's next? Pretend Kelly and Gadsby were superior offensively to the modern group of Lidstrom's peers even though Pilote came along after and produced more offensively some seasons than Harvey's group and then Orr came along and made everyone before look like defenseman didn't even cross centre before his arrival? Harvey gets special treatment and you have never questioned anything when it comes to him even though he and Lidstrom were close to identical players to their eras. I've told you this for years now because it's the truth and the ES / PP numbers revealed it even more.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Misrepresentations

I don't how you were raised but you crossed the line for me. Not only did you insinuate that I lied and then asked for proof, which I provided, but then you didn't even acknowledge it, as if people accuse others of lying all the time. Questioning someone's honesty is not some flippant aspect of regular conversation for you, is it? I don't really want to bother with you after that but since you keep pushing...

You are giving yourself way too much credit if you think I was ignoring you because your arguments were strong. There are so many flaws and inconsistencies in them that's it's hard to cover them all now but I'll try.

First off, you actually read my posts? You respond to most of them but I don't think you read them because my opinion and how I think has been repeated numerous times here and my argument is not what you think it is and its not the one that is terrible. It's completely irrational to believe a Canadian-only composed league from the middle of the 20th century would have as many great players as a league with 50 years of added growth to the sport, and don't pretend hockey didn't grow in Canada after Harvey's era, which also had 29 of the 60 Norris finalists in a 20 year span being non-Canadians when we had zero during Harvey's career. So this is two fold; Canadian hockey grew - probably substantially - and we have all those elite non-Canadians competing as well. Pretending to compare players across these eras on a peer to peer basis like its a fair comparison is what's terrible. How do you think we should compare the modern fully integrated NHL with the O6? It's not even apples and oranges, it's Fuji apples and kumquats so weighing them equally is an injustice to those delicious Fuji's.

If the whole world took up playing hockey and it became more popular than soccer, and was given time to grow and flourish around the world, don't you think there would be a hell of a lot more truly elite talent in this new version of the NHL than now? Wouldn't that make it a bigger feat to dominate, especially if a defenseman had the same career record and list of accomplishments as Lidstrom did? If that was the case then I would rank him higher than Lidstrom. Even if he didn't do quite as well against his own peers as Lidstrom but those peers were clearly from a much larger talent pool one would have to weigh his accomplishments on a higher plain. It's not a difficult concept to understand and should be used in some way if one is going to compare players across vastly different eras. You try to portray this with Bourque and his peers all the time, believing he had more of an uphill battle, but you refuse to give Lidstrom the same reasoning versus Harvey. Instead you act as if Lidstrom had it so easy, Bourque overcame the impossible, and you don't even need to question who Harvey competed with in terms of peers. We just know the NHL only had elite Canadians born pre-baby boom. Sorry, one peer group is not like the others here. Not close actually.

Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux dominated to such a degree, and all did it with baby boomers and when at least some elite non-Canadians were present so it's not difficult to assume they were just that good. Harvey isn't in that class though, in fact even in a peer to peer comparison he and Lidstrom are neck and neck, except Lidstrom appears to actually come out on top in more metrics. That's why I say it's quite easy to go with Lidstrom over Harvey. The only way to go with Harvey is if you ignore how much the composition of the league changed. Maybe the most talented Soviets would have decreased the scoring title margins 4, 99, and 66 had some seasons but that's about as far as anyone would venture. With Harvey I don't think he faced much, and certainly not as much as Lidstrom, so adding elite non-Canadians and a larger group of elite Canadian defenders would probably reduce his dominance quite a lot and maybe he wouldn't dominate at all some seasons. This is not a fact but it's not reasonable to just assume that adding so many more elite players would have no affect on his level of dominance or how Harvey is viewed.

How many years did you try to downgrade Lidstrom for relying on the PP for points? It turns out Harvey was even more guilty of that and all you do is talk about how dominant he was on the PP, ignoring that he was tied for 4th in the chart with Horton for ES points/70 games with 19. Meanwhile Lidstrom is tied for second with 24 in his peer group, just 1 back of the leader and even trailed Pronger in terms of the PP while Harvey made all his gains there. Then you try to compare Lidstrom with guys from much higher scoring years when ES points were clearly in abundance even though it's obvious that the best way to compare him is against actual peers who also played in those same DPE seasons. So what's next? Pretend Kelly and Gadsby were superior offensively to the modern group of Lidstrom's peers even though Pilote came along after and produced more offensively some seasons than Harvey's group and then Orr came along and made everyone before look like defenseman didn't even cross centre before his arrival? Harvey gets special treatment and you have never questioned anything when it comes to him even though he and Lidstrom were close to identical players to their eras. I've told you this for years now because it's the truth and the ES / PP numbers revealed it even more.

Your portrayal of the O6 defencemen is rather superficial and shaky. The few offensive talent only defencemen rarely were recorgnized as serious Norris Trophy or AST candidates. Prime examples would be Doug Mohns who played defence a few seasons starting with 1956-57 and Jim Morrison:

Doug Mohns:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mohnsdo01.html

5th in Norris Trophy voting in 1957, but behind Fern Flaman.

Jim Morrison 1957-58 Tor -2nd, 1958-59 Boston - 1st, 1959-60 Detroit 1st in defencemen scoring, no awards or AST honours, Yet Fern Flaman and Marcel Pronovost, teammates who he outscored received AST honours and top 5 awards consideration:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/morriji01.html

Bill Gadsby:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gadsbbi01.html

1949-50 season defencemen scoring:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Gadsby regularly was the top scoring defenceman on teams that were strong offensively but rarely made the playoffs. Changed when he was traded to Detroit.

Effectively, for the O6 era defencemen you are prioritizing offensive skills in a fashion that does not reflect the reality of the era.

Back to Doug Harvey. Jim Morrison produced comparable offensive stats to Doug Harvey during the 1959-60 season, one point difference. So your European or American Strawman, who could not defend the likes of Connie Broden, Red Berenson etc during the WHC may have scored in a vapid fashion like Jim Morrison or Doug Mohns but with no consequence on defensive honours or awards.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Your portrayal of the O6 defencemen is rather superficial and shaky. The few offensive talent only defencemen rarely were recorgnized as serious Norris Trophy or AST candidates. Prime examples would be Doug Mohns who played defence a few seasons starting with 1956-57 and Jim Morrison:

Doug Mohns:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mohnsdo01.html

5th in Norris Trophy voting in 1957, but behind Fern Flaman.

Jim Morrison 1957-58 Tor -2nd, 1958-59 Boston - 1st, 1959-60 Detroit 1st in defencemen scoring, no awards or AST honours, Yet Fern Flaman and Marcel Pronovost, teammates who he outscored received AST honours and top 5 awards consideration:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/morriji01.html

Bill Gadsby:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gadsbbi01.html

1949-50 season defencemen scoring:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Gadsby regularly was the top scoring defenceman on teams that were strong offensively but rarely made the playoffs. Changed when he was traded to Detroit.

Effectively, for the O6 era defencemen you are prioritizing offensive skills in a fashion that does not reflect the reality of the era.

Back to Doug Harvey. Jim Morrison produced comparable offensive stats to Doug Harvey during the 1959-60 season, one point difference. So your European or American Strawman, who could not defend the likes of Connie Broden, Red Berenson etc during the WHC may have scored in a vapid fashion like Jim Morrison or Doug Mohns but with no consequence on defensive honours or awards.

How is my portrayal of that era's defensemen shaky when your examples of this are two names that only you brought up in Mohns and Morrison? I was referring to this list, not Mohns and Morrison:

Top-scoring Defencemen, 52/53 to 59/60
Player | GP | G | A | P | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | ESP/70 | PPP/70 | SHP/70 | P/70
Doug Harvey | 534 | 49 | 249 | 298 | 31 | 115 | 146 | 18 | 132 | 150 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 20 | 0 | 39
Red Kelly | 470 | 110 | 195 | 305 | 67 | 121 | 188 | 35 | 67 | 102 | 7 | 7 | 15 | 28 | 15 | 2 | 45
Bill Gadsby | 548 | 66 | 232 | 298 | 39 | 133 | 172 | 23 | 92 | 115 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 22 | 15 | 1 | 38
Marcel Pronovost | 533 | 54 | 132 | 186 | 44 | 106 | 150 | 6 | 21 | 27 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 20 | 4 | 1 | 24
Allan Stanley | 466 | 42 | 137 | 179 | 31 | 77 | 108 | 10 | 50 | 60 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 9 | 2 | 27
Tim Horton | 501 | 34 | 140 | 174 | 30 | 108 | 138 | 3 | 25 | 28 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 19 | 4 | 1 | 24
Tom Johnson | 544 | 40 | 127 | 167 | 28 | 95 | 123 | 10 | 29 | 39 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 5 | 1 | 21
Fern Flaman | 524 | 18 | 124 | 142 | 14 | 113 | 127 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 19

I am not just prioritizing offense overall but we are obviously focusing on offense only with these charts because that's all they are displaying. When discussing Lidstrom and Harvey no one should question their defensive acumen because everyone realizes that was their greatest strength.

Bolded - you keep trying to argue this only because you can't argue what I'm really stating. Which is that, no matter what the reason, there were no elite non-Canadian defenders during Harvey's era but there were plenty during Lidstrom's and that points to there being more elite defenders overall, and therefore more competition among defenders.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
Bolded - you keep trying to argue this only because you can't argue what I'm really stating. Which is that, no matter what the reason, there were no elite non-Canadian defenders during Harvey's era but there were plenty during Lidstrom's and that points to there being more elite defenders overall, and therefore more competition among defenders.

Well, after almost 30 years of European integration, the yearly Norris voting still only features 2 or 3 Europeans maximum in the top 10-12 - and typically closer to the bottom, at that. You keep making it sound like there are dozens of players from newly tapped lands making it harder for the Doughtys, Keiths, Subbans, Pietrangelos, Webers, Letangs, etc. to establish themselves as the cream of the defenseman crop, but it's really just one guy: Karlsson. Just look at the defensemen who manage to find their way into yearly Hart voting, as well. Predominantly Canadian in composition. Karlsson is the same level of "exception" that Lidstrom was before him, with a smattering of Chara occasionally along the way.

So again, yes competition became tighter for the Nick Boyntons of the world to hold down a steady NHL job, but European integration has done relatively little to "challenge" the strength of defenseman that Canada continues to produce at the very top echelon. Americans, "integrated" much earlier, have had a far greater effect, even, and still pale in comparison. In fact, Europeans and Americans combined still pale in comparison when it comes to defensemen.

So in conclusion, no one is denying that there is some truth and logic to what you're saying, just that it isn't the cross-era comparison changer that you think it is on this specific topic.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Well, after almost 30 years of European integration, the yearly Norris voting still only features 2 or 3 Europeans maximum in the top 10-12 - and typically closer to the bottom, at that. You keep making it sound like there are dozens of players from newly tapped lands making it harder for the Doughtys, Keiths, Subbans, Pietrangelos, Webers, Letangs, etc. to establish themselves as the cream of the defenseman crop, but it's really just one guy: Karlsson. Just look at the defensemen who manage to find their way into yearly Hart voting, as well. Predominantly Canadian in composition. Karlsson is the same level of "exception" that Lidstrom was before him, with a smattering of Chara occasionally along the way.

So again, yes competition became tighter for the Nick Boyntons of the world to hold down a steady NHL job, but European integration has done relatively little to "challenge" the strength of defenseman that Canada continues to produce at the very top echelon. Americans, "integrated" much earlier, have had a far greater effect, even, and still pale in comparison. In fact, Europeans and Americans combined still pale in comparison when it comes to defensemen.

So in conclusion, no one is denying that there is some truth and logic to what you're saying, just that it isn't the cross-era comparison changer that you think it is on this specific topic.

If you want to focus on this past season specifically all you need to do is view this:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/2015-16-nhl-defensemen-stats.html

I look at this list and see that there are tons of very good defenseman in the league right now and it's very obvious that they are coming from several different countries. Yes, Canada still leads the way with the most, but there's no questioning that the non-Canadians have turned it into a mind field of great depth. It's not just the great Canadians you mentioned and Karlsson.

It is a cross-era comparison changer, especially when we also realize that the hockey product has even grown a lot in Canada since Harvey's time:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/1957-58-nhl-defensemen-stats.html

See the difference?
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
If you want to focus on this past season specifically all you need to do is view this:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/2015-16-nhl-defensemen-stats.html

I look at this list and see that there are tons of very good defenseman in the league right now and it's very obvious that they are coming from several different countries. Yes, Canada still leads the way with the most, but there's no questioning that the non-Canadians have turned it into a mind field of great depth. It's not just the great Canadians you mentioned and Karlsson.

It is a cross-era comparison changer, especially when we also realize that the hockey product has even grown a lot in Canada since Harvey's time:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/1957-58-nhl-defensemen-stats.html

See the difference?

Sure do. But did you notice who the actual Norris nominees are for this year? It's not simply the top 3 scoring defensemen. Let's wait and see the voting results and post season all-star nominations before continuing to focus on how important raw scoring stats are in determining who the best defensemen are on a yearly basis. And furthermore, let's realize that two of the yearly "favourites" (Keith/Subban) happened to both miss enough time this year to open the door for others to get recognition. And even then, we're mostly concerned with the players who have done it consistently enough to have their careers weighed against these guys in determining where the "bar of greatness" has been raised over time.

Either way, it's once again Karlsson plus a bunch of Canadians in the conversation, after almost 30 years of developing networks to scour the globe for talent and drafting up agreements to allow "poaching" from other leagues. If anything, the "curve" suggests that the rest of the world is still trying to make up the advantage that would have been even greater in Harvey's day, even if the best in the rest of the world at the time had been competing at the NHL level with/against him for direct comparison. More simply doesn't always mean better. Dilution seems almost as probable as discovery of higher concentration of greatness at the top, looking back.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Sure do. But did you notice who the actual Norris nominees are for this year? It's not simply the top 3 scoring defensemen. Let's wait and see the voting results and post season all-star nominations before continuing to focus on how important raw scoring stats are in determining who the best defensemen are on a yearly basis. And furthermore, let's realize that two of the yearly "favourites" (Keith/Subban) happened to both miss enough time this year to open the door for others to get recognition. And even then, we're mostly concerned with the players who have done it consistently enough to have their careers weighed against these guys in determining where the "bar of greatness" has been raised over time.

Either way, it's once again Karlsson plus a bunch of Canadians in the conversation, after almost 30 years of developing networks to scour the globe for talent and drafting up agreements to allow "poaching" from other leagues. If anything, the "curve" suggests that the rest of the world is still trying to make up the advantage that would have been even greater in Harvey's day, even if the best in the rest of the world at the time had been competing at the NHL level with/against him for direct comparison. More simply doesn't always mean better. Dilution seems almost as probable as discovery of higher concentration of greatness at the top, looking back.

With the media hype Doughty received I will be very surprised if he doesn't win it this year. I don't see a big difference between his season and Hedman's but Hedman isn't even a finalist and instead they went with the two offensive guys in Karlsson and Burns. That's the way voting goes some seasons and it's often a popularity contest.

We can wait and see how the voting ends up but to me it's very obvious that the depth of great players now blows away anything Harvey had to face and overcome. Adding the other streams of elite talent like we have now is not going to dilute the competition at the top, it makes it far more difficult to stand out. More opportunity (ice time) with 30 teams adds to the possibility that someone like Burns has a big year as well.

I'm not that superficial to think the top scoring defenseman are necessarily the best but that website shows the nationality of each player so it nicely displays the difference in eras loud and clear. This "bar of greatness" over their careers is not equal across these eras either. How could it be when you view the differences in the two lists you just viewed with the depth of the modern era crushing the O6. It makes Lidstrom standing out that many times (that many seasons) in his era a lot more impressive than Harvey doing it in his.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
O6 Defencemen

How is my portrayal of that era's defensemen shaky when your examples of this are two names that only you brought up in Mohns and Morrison? I was referring to this list, not Mohns and Morrison:

Top-scoring Defencemen, 52/53 to 59/60
Player | GP | G | A | P | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP | ESP/70 | PPP/70 | SHP/70 | P/70
Doug Harvey | 534 | 49 | 249 | 298 | 31 | 115 | 146 | 18 | 132 | 150 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 20 | 0 | 39
Red Kelly | 470 | 110 | 195 | 305 | 67 | 121 | 188 | 35 | 67 | 102 | 7 | 7 | 15 | 28 | 15 | 2 | 45
Bill Gadsby | 548 | 66 | 232 | 298 | 39 | 133 | 172 | 23 | 92 | 115 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 22 | 15 | 1 | 38
Marcel Pronovost | 533 | 54 | 132 | 186 | 44 | 106 | 150 | 6 | 21 | 27 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 20 | 4 | 1 | 24
Allan Stanley | 466 | 42 | 137 | 179 | 31 | 77 | 108 | 10 | 50 | 60 | 0 | 10 | 11 | 16 | 9 | 2 | 27
Tim Horton | 501 | 34 | 140 | 174 | 30 | 108 | 138 | 3 | 25 | 28 | 0 | 7 | 8 | 19 | 4 | 1 | 24
Tom Johnson | 544 | 40 | 127 | 167 | 28 | 95 | 123 | 10 | 29 | 39 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 16 | 5 | 1 | 21
Fern Flaman | 524 | 18 | 124 | 142 | 14 | 113 | 127 | 3 | 8 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 1 | 1 | 19

I am not just prioritizing offense overall but we are obviously focusing on offense only with these charts because that's all they are displaying. When discussing Lidstrom and Harvey no one should question their defensive acumen because everyone realizes that was their greatest strength.

Bolded - you keep trying to argue this only because you can't argue what I'm really stating. Which is that, no matter what the reason, there were no elite non-Canadian defenders during Harvey's era but there were plenty during Lidstrom's and that points to there being more elite defenders overall, and therefore more competition among defenders.

Point is that the offensive defencemen in the O6 era were easy to replace or move up to forward - Doug Mohns where their defensive liabilities were mitigated. Many - Pete Goegan, Kent Douglas and others could step in and do the job offensively at the same level as a Harvey or better at times but they could not do the job defensively. If you look at the SHGA for the Red Wings during Lidstrom's years they are bad compared to the SHGA in the O6 NHL.

Elite non-Canadian defenders during Doug Harvey's era. Your habitual strawman. Yet if we look at the opinions of two European hockey participants, Anatoli Tarasov and Ulf Sterner, such a defenceman simply did not exist:

Ulf Sterner 1964 The Gazette per Ulf Sterner:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Mp8tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XJ8FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=5843,667367

Two key points.

The comparable was to the two non-playoff NHL teams New York and Boston. Best defencemen were Harry Howell and Leo Boivin who were in the NHL during Harvey's Norris Trophy years but were non-factors.

Sterner is very specific about the Soviets changing their style in 1964. Also at no time does he mention the defensive strength of the Soviet or Swedish defencemen.

1966 La Patrie Jacques St. Jean, one of the leading junior coaches in Montréal in the 1960s after an extensive 23 day tour visiting European hockey people and interviewing Anatoli Tarasov:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g6suAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KzIDAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=1964,1739520

Tarasov makes two points that are very damaging to your position. First he agrees that the Soviet National team could compete with the two weakest teams the Bruins and Rangers. Similar to Sterner two years earlier. Also he does not talk about the strength of the Soviet defencemen at all. Nor does Jacques St.Jean raise the strength of the European defencemen from other countries.

Second and most telling point made by Tarasov is that he estimâtes it would take app three seasons for the Soviet National Team to adjust and be able to compete in the NHL. This is very telling. It recognizes the gap between the NHL(O6) and international hockey and it indirectly goes to the quality of the European defencemen. Namely less than two years later, not three, a long list of career minor league defencemen - Dale Rolfe, Bill White, Mike McMahon, Noel Price, etc were able to play with a fair amount of distinction:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g6suAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KzIDAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=1964,1739520

But they did not influence the Norris voting in any fashion. Yes, a few of the European and American defencemen from the fifties, early sixties deserved a chance at the NHL, similar to countless other Canadians in the minor leagues or senior hockey. But they would not have changed the results for the elite NHL awards and AST voting.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Point is that the offensive defencemen in the O6 era were easy to replace or move up to forward - Doug Mohns where their defensive liabilities were mitigated. Many - Pete Goegan, Kent Douglas and others could step in and do the job offensively at the same level as a Harvey or better at times but they could not do the job defensively. If you look at the SHGA for the Red Wings during Lidstrom's years they are bad compared to the SHGA in the O6 NHL.

Elite non-Canadian defenders during Doug Harvey's era. Your habitual strawman. Yet if we look at the opinions of two European hockey participants, Anatoli Tarasov and Ulf Sterner, such a defenceman simply did not exist:

Ulf Sterner 1964 The Gazette per Ulf Sterner:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Mp8tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XJ8FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=5843,667367

Two key points.

The comparable was to the two non-playoff NHL teams New York and Boston. Best defencemen were Harry Howell and Leo Boivin who were in the NHL during Harvey's Norris Trophy years but were non-factors.

Sterner is very specific about the Soviets changing their style in 1964. Also at no time does he mention the defensive strength of the Soviet or Swedish defencemen.

1966 La Patrie Jacques St. Jean, one of the leading junior coaches in Montréal in the 1960s after an extensive 23 day tour visiting European hockey people and interviewing Anatoli Tarasov:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g6suAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KzIDAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=1964,1739520

Tarasov makes two points that are very damaging to your position. First he agrees that the Soviet National team could compete with the two weakest teams the Bruins and Rangers. Similar to Sterner two years earlier. Also he does not talk about the strength of the Soviet defencemen at all. Nor does Jacques St.Jean raise the strength of the European defencemen from other countries.

Second and most telling point made by Tarasov is that he estimâtes it would take app three seasons for the Soviet National Team to adjust and be able to compete in the NHL. This is very telling. It recognizes the gap between the NHL(O6) and international hockey and it indirectly goes to the quality of the European defencemen. Namely less than two years later, not three, a long list of career minor league defencemen - Dale Rolfe, Bill White, Mike McMahon, Noel Price, etc were able to play with a fair amount of distinction:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=g6suAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KzIDAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=1964,1739520

But they did not influence the Norris voting in any fashion. Yes, a few of the European and American defencemen from the fifties, early sixties deserved a chance at the NHL, similar to countless other Canadians in the minor leagues or senior hockey. But they would not have changed the results for the elite NHL awards and AST voting.

This post of yours only strengthens my position. So who was Harvey's competition for the Norris and AS nominations because you're proclaiming that guys that could at least be considered that weren't because they were too one dimensional (Mohns, Goegan, Douglas). It makes the number of great defenseman, or at least worthy peers, back then seem even slimmer because the numbers are small to begin with.

For the last time, I'm not saying there were elite European defenseman who could compete with Harvey during that era. That's precisely my point, the talent pool for elite defenders in the NHL was very small when compared to today - a fraction of what we have in the modern era. Do you understand this or not?
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Hockey Population

If you want to focus on this past season specifically all you need to do is view this:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/2015-16-nhl-defensemen-stats.html

I look at this list and see that there are tons of very good defenseman in the league right now and it's very obvious that they are coming from several different countries. Yes, Canada still leads the way with the most, but there's no questioning that the non-Canadians have turned it into a mind field of great depth. It's not just the great Canadians you mentioned and Karlsson.

It is a cross-era comparison changer, especially when we also realize that the hockey product has even grown a lot in Canada since Harvey's time:

http://www.quanthockey.com/nhl/seasons/1957-58-nhl-defensemen-stats.html

See the difference?

Sadly you refuse to admit that the hockey playing population in the world has shrunk since Harvey' time in the O6 era.

Submit the following for your consideration.

1969 Anatoli Tarasov quoted in the Montréal Gazette:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X44uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UKAFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=1162,1472841

refers to 3,000,000 youth hockey participants. Today youth hockey participation in Russia if flirting with 100,00. Hardly an increase.

Recently found numbers from 1971 for the Metro Toronto area, article pre 1971 Québec Sports Symposium:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aaNYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UyIEAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=3388,4934397

68,000 youngsters playing elite hockey in the MTA as opposed to recreational hockey which normally is a 4-5 time multiple in any region depending on participation rules. So in the MTA region you would have had upwards of 350,000 youngsters playing hockey during the 1970-71 season.

From The Star, February, 1, 2013, article detailing participation in the GTA - 40,000 youth players, all inclusive - elite and recreational, male and female.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/01/11/is_minor_hockey_worth_it.html

Seems that participation levels in Canada and worldwide are down significantly. To the point that it is demonstratable that it was harder for Doug Harvey to shine in a deep Canadian talent pool, than it is for anyone to shine in the modern, shallow, international pool.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Competition

This post of yours only strengthens my position. So who was Harvey's competition for the Norris and AS nominations because you're proclaiming that guys that could at least be considered that weren't because they were too one dimensional (Mohns, Goegan, Douglas). It makes the number of great defenseman, or at least worthy peers, back then seem even slimmer because the numbers are small to begin with.

For the last time, I'm not saying there were elite European defenseman who could compete with Harvey during that era. That's precisely my point, the talent pool for elite defenders in the NHL was very small when compared to today - a fraction of what we have in the modern era. Do you understand this or not?

Opposite is true. Cited the defencemen in the 21 to 35 overall range from the O6 era. Harvey's competition would come from the top 10 - 15 maybe 20.

Point is that today you do not have even 10 solid candidates for the Norris Trophy voting every season. As illustrated for the O6 era you have a fair number with flashy offensive numbers mainly short term, but today you do not have more than 10 serious contenders for the Norris season after season.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Sadly you refuse to admit that the hockey playing population in the world has shrunk since Harvey' time in the O6 era.

Submit the following for your consideration.

1969 Anatoli Tarasov quoted in the Montréal Gazette:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=X44uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UKAFAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=1162,1472841

refers to 3,000,000 youth hockey participants. Today youth hockey participation in Russia if flirting with 100,00. Hardly an increase.

Recently found numbers from 1971 for the Metro Toronto area, article pre 1971 Québec Sports Symposium:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aaNYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UyIEAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=3388,4934397

68,000 youngsters playing elite hockey in the MTA as opposed to recreational hockey which normally is a 4-5 time multiple in any region depending on participation rules. So in the MTA region you would have had upwards of 350,000 youngsters playing hockey during the 1970-71 season.

From The Star, February, 1, 2013, article detailing participation in the GTA - 40,000 youth players, all inclusive - elite and recreational, male and female.

https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/01/11/is_minor_hockey_worth_it.html

Seems that participation levels in Canada and worldwide are down significantly. To the point that it is demonstratable that it was harder for Doug Harvey to shine in a deep Canadian talent pool, than it is for anyone to shine in the modern, shallow, international pool.

When was Harvey born and when did he play? How many Soviets did he compete with in the NHL? What years are these articles referencing? Answer these questions and you will see these articles have nothing to do with the talent pool Harvey faced. In fact, they are closer to the talent pool Lidstrom would have faced because he was born in 1970, not 1924 like Harvey.

Do you really believe that hockey shrunk in the second half of the 20th century from the first half? What Tarasov is saying is that Soviet hockey really only started to grow in the 50's. Those kids would make up the Red Army teams of the 70's and 80's. It did take a huge hit with political changes but they still produce elite players and those players are in the NHL, unlike Harvey's era.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
I haven't read through everything in this long thread, but there's one point that's been raised repeatedly that needs to be corrected.

It's been stated repeatedly that 29 of 60 Norris finalists during Lidstrom's career were non-Canadian. That's literally true, but also deceptive.

Lidstrom was a factor in Norris voting from 1998 to 2011 (placing third or higher in each of those years except 2004 and 2010).

A disproportionate amount of non-Canadians factored into Norris trophy voting outside of this span (1992 to 1997, and 2012). 11 of 21 defensemen during this period were non-Canadians (seven Americans, one Russian, one Sweden, one Latvian and one Slovakian). Thus, the "29 out of 60" line is literally true, but also misleading as it largely reflects the golden age of American defensemen (Leetch, Chelios, Housley) who were contending for the Norris before Lidstrom was a factor.

Of the 39 Norris finalists during the portion of Lidstrom's career where he was considered an elite defenseman (1998 to 2011), 18 were non-Canadian, and 11 of those eighteen were Lidstrom himself.

If we remove Lidstrom and replace him with the defenseman ranked 4th, we're left with 12 non-Canadian Norris finalists out of 39. Only three of them ranked higher than third in Norris voting (Chara won in 2009 and was runner up in 2004, and Chelios was runner up in 2002). All the other nine defensemen finished 3rd or 4th in voting.

Thus, a more accurate statement is that during Lidstrom's prime years, 12 out of 39 Norris finalists (31%) were non Canadian (excluding Lidstrom, since he isn't competing against himself, but including whoever he kicked out of the top three). Just three of 26 defensemen who won the Norris, or finished second, were non-Canadian.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I haven't read through everything in this long thread, but there's one point that's been raised repeatedly that needs to be corrected.

It's been stated repeatedly that 29 of 60 Norris finalists during Lidstrom's career were non-Canadian. That's literally true, but also deceptive.

Lidstrom was a factor in Norris voting from 1998 to 2011 (placing third or higher in each of those years except 2004 and 2010).

A disproportionate amount of non-Canadians factored into Norris trophy voting outside of this span (1992 to 1997, and 2012). 11 of 21 defensemen during this period were non-Canadians (seven Americans, one Russian, one Sweden, one Latvian and one Slovakian). Thus, the "29 out of 60" line is literally true, but also misleading as it largely reflects the golden age of American defensemen (Leetch, Chelios, Housley) who were contending for the Norris before Lidstrom was a factor.

Of the 39 Norris finalists during the portion of Lidstrom's career where he was considered an elite defenseman (1998 to 2011), 18 were non-Canadian, and 11 of those eighteen were Lidstrom himself.

If we remove Lidstrom and replace him with the defenseman ranked 4th, we're left with 12 non-Canadian Norris finalists out of 39. Only three of them ranked higher than third in Norris voting (Chara won in 2009 and was runner up in 2004, and Chelios was runner up in 2002). All the other nine defensemen finished 3rd or 4th in voting.

Thus, a more accurate statement is that during Lidstrom's prime years, 12 out of 39 Norris finalists (31%) were non Canadian (excluding Lidstrom, since he isn't competing against himself, but including whoever he kicked out of the top three). Just three of 26 defensemen who won the Norris, or finished second, were non-Canadian.

These are the facts when broken down so I can appreciate that. But would Lidstrom have been a factor in Norris voting earlier if he was the lone non-Canadian in the league?

'95-96 Norris voting had Chelios, Bourque, Leetch, Konstantinov, and Coffey all ahead of Lidstrom - only two Canadians.

'96-97 Norris voting had Leetch, Konstantinov, Ozolinsh, Chelios, and Stevens all ahead of Lidstrom - only one Canadian.

This is obviously not a perfect formula on what would have happened without non-Canadians other than Lidstrom but it does help display the impact they had on where he stood in voters eyes before '98. Harvey simply didn't have to compete with any elite non-Canadians whatsoever in his era of the NHL.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
These are the facts when broken down so I can appreciate that. But would Lidstrom have been a factor in Norris voting earlier if he was the lone non-Canadian in the league?

'95-96 Norris voting had Chelios, Bourque, Leetch, Konstantinov, and Coffey all ahead of Lidstrom - only two Canadians.

'96-97 Norris voting had Leetch, Konstantinov, Ozolinsh, Chelios, and Stevens all ahead of Lidstrom - only one Canadian.

This is obviously not a perfect formula on what would have happened without non-Canadians other than Lidstrom but it does help display the impact they had on where he stood in voters eyes before '98. Harvey simply didn't have to compete with any elite non-Canadians whatsoever in his era of the NHL.

I think that's a fair point. In a Canadian only league, Lidstrom probably would have been a finalist in 1996 (3rd) and 1997 (2nd). Obviously that assumes that nothing else changes, which wouldn't be the case, but I'd rather use that as a starting point.

Clearly Lidstrom faced more competition from non-Canadian talent than Harvey - but I think the number is more like 30% (of the league's elite defensemen), instead of nearly 50%, as was originally suggested.
 

Fugu

RIP Barb
Nov 26, 2004
36,952
220
϶(°o°)ϵ
I haven't read through everything in this long thread, but there's one point that's been raised repeatedly that needs to be corrected.

It's been stated repeatedly that 29 of 60 Norris finalists during Lidstrom's career were non-Canadian. That's literally true, but also deceptive.

Lidstrom was a factor in Norris voting from 1998 to 2011 (placing third or higher in each of those years except 2004 and 2010).

A disproportionate amount of non-Canadians factored into Norris trophy voting outside of this span (1992 to 1997, and 2012). 11 of 21 defensemen during this period were non-Canadians (seven Americans, one Russian, one Sweden, one Latvian and one Slovakian). Thus, the "29 out of 60" line is literally true, but also misleading as it largely reflects the golden age of American defensemen (Leetch, Chelios, Housley) who were contending for the Norris before Lidstrom was a factor.

Of the 39 Norris finalists during the portion of Lidstrom's career where he was considered an elite defenseman (1998 to 2011), 18 were non-Canadian, and 11 of those eighteen were Lidstrom himself.

If we remove Lidstrom and replace him with the defenseman ranked 4th, we're left with 12 non-Canadian Norris finalists out of 39. Only three of them ranked higher than third in Norris voting (Chara won in 2009 and was runner up in 2004, and Chelios was runner up in 2002). All the other nine defensemen finished 3rd or 4th in voting.

Thus, a more accurate statement is that during Lidstrom's prime years, 12 out of 39 Norris finalists (31%) were non Canadian (excluding Lidstrom, since he isn't competing against himself, but including whoever he kicked out of the top three). Just three of 26 defensemen who won the Norris, or finished second, were non-Canadian.

Is the assumption that elite talent is a percentage of all players? If yes, how does one adjust for an NHL with 4-5 times as many players? I get that generational players are fewer and farther in between, but Dan may be spending too much time just focusing on Canadian talent, which even today at 50% of the league is still a lot more. (Not sure about the defensemen percentages by origin.)

I don't think you can say that there would fewer elite and generational type players in a far, far bigger pool. The common argument against expansion is that the talent pool is diluted. This is true for a few years right after expansion, but more spots create more opportunities, and the talent follows.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,987
Is the assumption that elite talent is a percentage of all players?

That's not my assumption (and I'm not sure if anybody in this thread has used that assumption). I was simply correcting a factual error about the composition (ie nationalities) of the league's best defensemen.

If yes, how does one adjust for an NHL with 4-5 times as many players? I get that generational players are fewer and farther in between, but Dan may be spending too much time just focusing on Canadian talent, which even today at 50% of the league is still a lot more. (Not sure about the defensemen percentages by origin.)

I agree, one would need to consider how much of the increase in the talent pool is due to the increased Canadian population, and how much is due to players from other countries who otherwise wouldn't have played in the NHL. I don't know a good process to do this.

I don't think you can say that there would fewer elite and generational type players in a far, far bigger pool.

Not sure if you're mixing me up with someone else, but I never said that.

The common argument against expansion is that the talent pool is diluted. This is true for a few years right after expansion, but more spots create more opportunities, and the talent follows.

I think it depends on if we're talking about average talent and total talent. If the NHL added an expansion team tomorrow, the total level of talent would increase (because you'd have twenty more players joining the league). The average level of talent would decrease because (presumably) these players are leftovers after the other thirty teams have already filled their rosters.

The NHL's average level of talent was probably at its peak during the Original Six era, but the total level of talent is probably at its peak today. Which is more important in assessing a player is open for debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->