Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

[danincanada]

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.

Fair enough. It probably seemed like I was implying that 48% (29 of 60) of the top defenseman were non-Canadians during Lidstrom's career but that's not what I originally intended. It just shows how large an impact non-Canadians had on voting, and that obviously includes Lidstrom and all the times he was a Norris finalist. I think I originally mentioned that it was 17 of 48 if Lidstrom is simply subtracted, which is 35%.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Numbers

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.

Numbers do not lie whether they are worked forwards or backwards.

Addressing the Lidstrom point first by working the numbers backwards from today. Sweden has produced three elite defencemen. Erik Karlsson, Nicklas Lidstrom and Borje Salming. Roughly twenty years apart, even though you claim there is this tremendous growth in hockey talent, the amount of elite Swedish defencemen comes along at a pretty regular rate.

Likewise the Soviet numbers. Produced a national team, not a league on a par with the O6 NHL or the 21 team post WHA, NHL. Then faded away. Canada kept on producing talent despite two WWs, a depression, a thirty year stetch where hockey was not a social priority.

As for the talent pool Lidstrom faced. Between the 1993 NHL Entry Draft which produced Chris Pronger and the 2002 NHL Entry Draft which produced Duncan Keith, both Canadiens, both elite defencemen, the hockey world, Canada, USA, Europe did not produce any elite defencemen, just very good defencemen. So a growing talent pool is not a productive, deeper pool as you claim. Zdeno Chara, 1996 was the ultimate outlier, misevaluated at every step until reaching Boston.The pool was shrinking, not growing. Interestingly Lidstrom's streak of Norris success started at the same time as incoming NHL talent on defence slumped.

Doug Harvey never had the benefit of such a prolongued talent slump in the production of Canadian defencemen. Harvey entered the league at the same time as Kelly, Gadsby, Stanley, Thomson, Mortson, Flaman and others, successively followed by other greats, Johnson, Horton,M. Pronovost, Boivin, Howell, Pilote, Brewer.

Even in 2003 when there was a spike in talented defencemen in the NHL Entry Draft, the spike was lead by Canadians - Seabrooke, Burns, Weber, perhaps Phaneuf and an American Ryan Suter.

Worked backwards or forwards your provenance argument does not work well.

 

[Fugu]

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.



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.



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



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.

I probably should have said, "One should not ______" rather than "you" -- which I did mean generically for anyone willing to entertain the question and claims made in the thread.

I appreciate your response and corrections to the above.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Elite Talent

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.

Elite talent has always been fluid and rare regardless of the activity, population or provenance. 16th/17th century London produced William Shakespeare. London population circa 1600 was app. 200,000. 2010 Topeka, Kansas area had a population of app 230,000.(Bill James made this analogy BTW) but has yet to produce a William Shakespeare. Same is true for many communities since the 16th/17th century, but they have not produced a William Shakespeare either.

There are many more openings for talented writers in the last five centuries than there were during Shakespeare's lifetime. The expansion of opportunities is a function of demand not available talent.

Today, the available talent, though inferior to Shakespeare, enjoys the advantage of entertaining more spectators, is available in more venues, benefits from greater global literacy and technological advances, makes more money but it is not better. It may be redistributed to various disciplines and genres, be more visible, have a captive niche audience but it is not better.

Same holds for hockey. Visibility in 30 markets and internationally with a perpetual visual record available, does not make talent better. Just means that hockey talent today entertains and touches more people.

 

[Fugu]

Elite talent has always been fluid and rare regardless of the activity, population or provenance. 16th/17th century London produced William Shakespeare. London population circa 1600 was app. 200,000. 2010 Topeka, Kansas area had a population of app 230,000.(Bill James made this analogy BTW) but has yet to produce a William Shakespeare. Same is true for many communities since the 16th/17th century, but they have not produced a William Shakespeare either.

There are many more openings for talented writers in the last five centuries than there were during Shakespeare's lifetime. The expansion of opportunities is a function of demand not available talent.

Today, the available talent, though inferior to Shakespeare, enjoys the advantage of entertaining more spectators, is available in more venues, benefits from greater global literacy and technological advances, makes more money but it is not better. It may be redistributed to various disciplines and genres, be more visible, have a captive niche audience but it is not better.

Same holds for hockey. Visibility in 30 markets and internationally with a perpetual visual record available, does not make talent better. Just means that hockey talent today entertains and touches more people.

I disagree, and also especially with the analogy used.

 

[danincanada]

Number is 0

Numbers do not lie whether they are worked forwards or backwards.

Addressing the Lidstrom point first by working the numbers backwards from today. Sweden has produced three elite defencemen. Erik Karlsson, Nicklas Lidstrom and Borje Salming. Roughly twenty years apart, even though you claim there is this tremendous growth in hockey talent, the amount of elite Swedish defencemen comes along at a pretty regular rate.

Likewise the Soviet numbers. Produced a national team, not a league on a par with the O6 NHL or the 21 team post WHA, NHL. Then faded away. Canada kept on producing talent despite two WWs, a depression, a thirty year stetch where hockey was not a social priority.

As for the talent pool Lidstrom faced. Between the 1993 NHL Entry Draft which produced Chris Pronger and the 2002 NHL Entry Draft which produced Duncan Keith, both Canadiens, both elite defencemen, the hockey world, Canada, USA, Europe did not produce any elite defencemen, just very good defencemen. So a growing talent pool is not a productive, deeper pool as you claim. Zdeno Chara, 1996 was the ultimate outlier, misevaluated at every step until reaching Boston.The pool was shrinking, not growing. Interestingly Lidstrom's streak of Norris success started at the same time as incoming NHL talent on defence slumped.

Doug Harvey never had the benefit of such a prolongued talent slump in the production of Canadian defencemen. Harvey entered the league at the same time as Kelly, Gadsby, Stanley, Thomson, Mortson, Flaman and others, successively followed by other greats, Johnson, Horton,M. Pronovost, Boivin, Howell, Pilote, Brewer.

Even in 2003 when there was a spike in talented defencemen in the NHL Entry Draft, the spike was lead by Canadians - Seabrooke, Burns, Weber, perhaps Phaneuf and an American Ryan Suter.

Worked backwards or forwards your provenance argument does not work well.

The only number we can focus on for the elite non-Canadians Harvey faced is 0. That one is easy. Everything else is just seeing how much more Lidstrom's era faced in this regard. If the top Canadians of that era didn't have to face any non-Canadians we would view them in a different way and probably more fondly, just like you are by listing the top 10 or so of Harvey's era and pretending they would all be AS calibre in todays NHL.

Salming, Lidstrom with very good players like Olausson, Samuelsson, then Karlsson/Hedman and possibly OEL/Klingberg. The number of quality Swedish defenseman has increased. I would put Hedman in the elite category as well and there are a few up and coming guys who could reach that level.

Lidstrom had to deal with a whole group of elite defenders that were already established in the first half of his career including Bourque, Coffey, Chelios, MacInnis, Stevens, etc.

Leetch was more a Lidstrom peer, as was Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake, Konstantinov for a few years, Zubov, Gonchar, and Chara.

Then a new generation came and Lidstrom competed with younger versions of them including, Weber, Doughty, Keith, Karlsson, etc.

I don't see nearly this much competition for Harvey over his whole career. It simply didn't exist in the NHL at that time. Who were the older guys Harvey had to overcome early on? Quackebush, Stewart and Reardon? Who were the younger guys coming in later in his career? Pilote? It's not the same at all.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Lidstrom is top 5, but Harvey is #2.

 

[pluppe]

Elite talent has always been fluid and rare regardless of the activity, population or provenance. 16th/17th century London produced William Shakespeare. London population circa 1600 was app. 200,000. 2010 Topeka, Kansas area had a population of app 230,000.(Bill James made this analogy BTW) but has yet to produce a William Shakespeare. Same is true for many communities since the 16th/17th century, but they have not produced a William Shakespeare either.

There are many more openings for talented writers in the last five centuries than there were during Shakespeare's lifetime. The expansion of opportunities is a function of demand not available talent.

Today, the available talent, though inferior to Shakespeare, enjoys the advantage of entertaining more spectators, is available in more venues, benefits from greater global literacy and technological advances, makes more money but it is not better. It may be redistributed to various disciplines and genres, be more visible, have a captive niche audience but it is not better.

Same holds for hockey. Visibility in 30 markets and internationally with a perpetual visual record available, does not make talent better. Just means that hockey talent today entertains and touches more people.

London has not produced a Shakespeare either. He moved there somewhere between ages 20 and 28.

 

[MXD]

London has not produced a Shakespeare either. He moved there somewhere between ages 20 and 28.

It did produce Ben Jonson and Francis Bacon, which is much better than everything to come up of Topeka since.

 

[pluppe]

Someone said earlier in this thread that we don't have PP scoring numbers for Harvey. Those numbers can be compiled from the Hockey Summary Project data and I have done so.

Here's a table I posted in the Top 60 defencemen project.

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

Looking at these stats you would assume that Doug Harvey did not play shorthanded regularly. How else would you explain having the lowest short handed point totals amongst his peers. Far behind the leaders. Far behind everybody really, including his teammate Tom Johnson. While being said to have had a great outlet pass, great defensive ability and an all time great ability to dictate the game. Shouldn´t he have picked up a point here and there.

But it sounds strange that he wouldn´t have played short handed. Anyone have an explanation for this?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Canadiens PK

Looking at these stats you would assume that Doug Harvey did not play shorthanded regularly. How else would you explain having the lowest short handed point totals amongst his peers. Far behind the leaders. Far behind everybody really, including his teammate Tom Johnson. While being said to have had a great outlet pass, great defensive ability and an all time great ability to dictate the game. Shouldn´t he have picked up a point here and there.

But it sounds strange that he wouldn´t have played short handed. Anyone have an explanation for this?

This has been explained before. Canadiens PK did not feature any of the top 9 starting forwards. Usually the two players covering the point were Don Marshall, many seasons the last forward, strong on faceoffs and Bob Turner the 5th defenceman. If they blocked a shot, intercepted a pass, fine they would try to score. Otherwise the puck would simply be iced. The most efficient option.

Unless penalized or injured, Harvey was a PK constant and the leader.

 

[blogofmike]

The only number we can focus on for the elite non-Canadians Harvey faced is 0. That one is easy. Everything else is just seeing how much more Lidstrom's era faced in this regard. If the top Canadians of that era didn't have to face any non-Canadians we would view them in a different way and probably more fondly, just like you are by listing the top 10 or so of Harvey's era and pretending they would all be AS calibre in todays NHL.

Salming, Lidstrom with very good players like Olausson, Samuelsson, then Karlsson/Hedman and possibly OEL/Klingberg. The number of quality Swedish defenseman has increased. I would put Hedman in the elite category as well and there are a few up and coming guys who could reach that level.

Lidstrom had to deal with a whole group of elite defenders that were already established in the first half of his career including Bourque, Coffey, Chelios, MacInnis, Stevens, etc.

Leetch was more a Lidstrom peer, as was Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake, Konstantinov for a few years, Zubov, Gonchar, and Chara.

Then a new generation came and Lidstrom competed with younger versions of them including, Weber, Doughty, Keith, Karlsson, etc.

I don't see nearly this much competition for Harvey over his whole career. It simply didn't exist in the NHL at that time. Who were the older guys Harvey had to overcome early on? Quackebush, Stewart and Reardon? Who were the younger guys coming in later in his career? Pilote? It's not the same at all.

I never really cared about Canadian vs non-Canadian.

I think the much better point is the general competition level at the top, which will ebb and flow with time. And it flowed for Norris-calibre defenders in the 80s and 90s crop of Bourque/Chelios/MacInnis/Coffey who didn't leave any Norris leftovers for a guy like Scott Stevens.

Much like in boxing, where no one cares that Rocky Marciano was 49-0 and Muhammad Ali was 56-5, it's about who you actually competed against. Ali is more highly regarded because of his opponents.

That being said, when the generation of awesome defenders was around, Lidstrom didn't win any. The guys they beat for Norrisses are:

Year | Player | Age
1955 | Red Kelly | 27
1956 | Bill Gadsby | 28
1957 | Red Kelly | 29
1958 | Bill Gadsby | 30
1960 | Allan Stanley | 33
1961 | Marcel Provonost | 30
1962 | Pierre Pilote | 30
2001 | Ray Bourque | 40
2002 | Chris Chelios | 40
2003 | Al MacInnis | 39
2006 | Scott Niedermayer | 32
2007 | Scott Niedermayer | 33
2008 | Dion Phaneuf | 22
2011 | Shea Weber | 25

While still great defenders, the great 80s/90s defenders were far past their prime in Lidstrom's early wins. Phaneuf seemed like a weak second place even at the time. While beating Shea Weber is impressive, Weber would be at home polishing his 2011 Norris Trophy if the old 5-3-1 system was used.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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...

C'mon Dan, get over it. My supposed "accusations" were in response to you missing certain facts from the book.
You were either,
A) Doing it to test me to see if I had read the book
or
B) You hadn't actually read the book
or
C) You omitted them on purpose because it didn't support or went against your agenda

And again, nobody is fooled.
Your feigned outrage is just a convenient excuse to not answer my posts that you couldn't answer to in the first place.

You are giving yourself way too much credit if you think I was ignoring you because your arguments were strong.

See...here's the problem Dan.
The difference between you and I is that I take all the facts into the mix.
For example, I do take into account that Lidstrom faced more worldwide competition but I also take into account that Harvey was playing the very best of the best on a much, much more regular basis AND that Lidstrom faced no less than NINE expansion teams that came into the League during his career.
To boot, we haven't even got into payrolls and the whole lopsided have's and have not's ratio that happened for most of Lidstrom's career.
I give weights to both and determine that they more or less cancel each other out with any advantage for either player being slight.
You on the other hand, put all the weight behind the former and completely ignore any of the latter.

Like do you honestly believe that Lidstrom facing expansion teams and low payroll have not's for 30% and even up to 55-60% of his games some seasons is the same as Harvey just playing against Howe/Lindsay, Hull/Mikita a full 40% of the time.
If so, then that's ridiculous!

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.

And yet, you have no issue using Harvey's straight stats from 50 years to make direct comparisons to Lidstrom numbers but in the very next breath you have no issue telling anyone that will listen that we should take Bourque's numbers from only a difference of 10 years with a grain of salt.
Somehow the League and the role of Dmen changed more in those 10 years than it did in 50 years.
Forget that the slapshot was still in its' infancy and rarely used by anyone, let alone Dmen during Harvey's career.
Forget that it was pre-Orr and that Dmen rushing of the puck was rare and highly discouraged.
Obviously those things are minor to how Dmen operate and produce points in today's game

And finally, I'm sorry but after viewing many hours of Harvey footage and reading countless first-hand accounts of his play, I refuse to believe that Harvey today would only be as effective offensively at even strength as Chara was.
As you know and I have shown countless times in this thread already, that is EXACTLY how effective Lidstrom was offensively at even strength for the entire second half of his career.
Harvey would be much closer to Bourque in that regard than to Lidstrom. No doubt in my mind!
Trust me, I am faaaaaarrrr from the only one and quite assuredly not in the minority on that.

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.

And again, show me some evidence, ANY evidence that more players means more Elite players.
I assure you, there isn't any.
We have era's where the hockey population increased and produced less Elite talent and we have era's where the hockey population went down and produced more Elite talent.
There is no rhyme or reason to it and no odds of 1 in so many, it's completely 100% random.

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.

Not a bad response but I think what you left out of it is more important and speaks volumes over than what you actually said.
You know, how it's funny that you specifically left out mentioning Howe or Hull. I wonder why that is...hmmmm

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.

Covered this already but I don't mind doing it again quickly.
A) The slapshot
B) Dmen discouraged from rushing the puck

As far as where Kelly and Pilote are concerned...YES, Kelly was superior offensively to Lidstrom and the peer group you have him listed with in that chart. Kelly is in the Potvin/Bourque/Leetch class.
Pilote is about in the same class as Lidstrom, the one BELOW Kelly/Potvin/Bourque/Leetch.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Folks -

We're going in circles, and have been doing so for weeks.

Present your closing arguments, because this thread will close in 24 hours.

That is all.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Ok so less to do with Harvey and more to do with Lidstrom but you want to see something really funny on the whole non-Canadian argument...

Starting with HO's post here:

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.

By comparison, the number of non-Canadian's in the top-3 for Potvin from 74/75-87/88...
Out of 42 finalists, 11 were non-Canadian or 26.2%.

Doing the same for Potvin as was done for Lidstrom and removing him as he wasn't competing against himself, that number goes to 13/42 or 31.0%
Funny how that matches Lidstrom's 12/39, 31% eh.

Sorry, just thought that was interesting.

 

[danincanada]

Ok so less to do with Harvey and more to do with Lidstrom but you want to see something really funny on the whole non-Canadian argument...

Starting with HO's post here:

By comparison, the number of non-Canadian's in the top-3 for Potvin from 74/75-87/88...
Out of 42 finalists, 11 were non-Canadian or 26.2%.

Doing the same for Potvin as was done for Lidstrom and removing him as he wasn't competing against himself, that number goes to 13/42 or 31.0%
Funny how that matches Lidstrom's 12/39, 31% eh.

Sorry, just thought that was interesting.

You got that right. No matter who you compare with Harvey his non-Canadian competition will always be 0. Most of the all-time great defenders who came after weren't so fortunate.

 

[danincanada]

C'mon Dan, get over it. My supposed "accusations" were in response to you missing certain facts from the book.
You were either,
A) Doing it to test me to see if I had read the book
or
B) You hadn't actually read the book
or
C) You omitted them on purpose because it didn't support or went against your agenda

And again, nobody is fooled.
Your feigned outrage is just a convenient excuse to not answer my posts that you couldn't answer to in the first place.

That's not even what happened. You claimed Harvey had more PIMs because he fought so I asked specifically how many fights was he in, as in you know, "how many", "how much", "a quantity", and you proceeded to go ballistic and listed all his credentials as a fighter and his history in a long and unnecessary tirade. Then questioned if I really read the book. It was a very strange exchange but now your account of it has completed changed from reality.

See...here's the problem Dan.
The difference between you and I is that I take all the facts into the mix.
For example, I do take into account that Lidstrom faced more worldwide competition but I also take into account that Harvey was playing the very best of the best on a much, much more regular basis AND that Lidstrom faced no less than NINE expansion teams that came into the League during his career.
To boot, we haven't even got into payrolls and the whole lopsided have's and have not's ratio that happened for most of Lidstrom's career.
I give weights to both and determine that they more or less cancel each other out with any advantage for either player being slight.
You on the other hand, put all the weight behind the former and completely ignore any of the latter.

Like do you honestly believe that Lidstrom facing expansion teams and low payroll have not's for 30% and even up to 55-60% of his games some seasons is the same as Harvey just playing against Howe/Lindsay, Hull/Mikita a full 40% of the time.
If so, then that's ridiculous!

Stan Mikita? His first AS nomination was the same season Harvey had his last. Mikita and Hull were 16 and 15 years younger than Harvey. It's not what you're trying to sell here.

Besides, Harvey only having to face a small group of Canadian defenders is simply far more beneficial to his AS and Norris record and how he is viewed overall. The other defenders of his time had to play against the same forwards over and over again as well, except Harvey was on the most stacked team, other than the Red Wings some seasons, and he had 7 time Vezina winner Plante behind him most years. Again, it's simply not what you're trying to submit here.

And yet, you have no issue using Harvey's straight stats from 50 years to make direct comparisons to Lidstrom numbers but in the very next breath you have no issue telling anyone that will listen that we should take Bourque's numbers from only a difference of 10 years with a grain of salt.
Somehow the League and the role of Dmen changed more in those 10 years than it did in 50 years.
Forget that the slapshot was still in its' infancy and rarely used by anyone, let alone Dmen during Harvey's career.
Forget that it was pre-Orr and that Dmen rushing of the puck was rare and highly discouraged.
Obviously those things are minor to how Dmen operate and produce points in today's game

And finally, I'm sorry but after viewing many hours of Harvey footage and reading countless first-hand accounts of his play, I refuse to believe that Harvey today would only be as effective offensively at even strength as Chara was.
As you know and I have shown countless times in this thread already, that is EXACTLY how effective Lidstrom was offensively at even strength for the entire second half of his career.
Harvey would be much closer to Bourque in that regard than to Lidstrom. No doubt in my mind!
Trust me, I am faaaaaarrrr from the only one and quite assuredly not in the minority on that.

I didn't just use raw (straight?) numbers, I used adjusted as well and team finishes. They all have Lidstrom comfortably ahead.

Harvey was as effective offensively at ES as Tim Horton, and trailed Kelly but a wide margin, and trailed Gadsby and Pronovost. He made all of his gains on the PP and in their primes Lidstrom was actually higher up his peer rankings in ES points than Harvey. You can refuse to believe whatever you want. You seem to be refusing to believe that Harvey is more guilty of relying on the PP than Lidstrom even though you criticized the former of this at length over the years.

And again, show me some evidence, ANY evidence that more players means more Elite players.
I assure you, there isn't any.
We have era's where the hockey population increased and produced less Elite talent and we have era's where the hockey population went down and produced more Elite talent.
There is no rhyme or reason to it and no odds of 1 in so many, it's completely 100% random.

Do you not realize how ridiculous this sounds? Look at the impact the non-Canadians have had on AS nominations and awards and all the other accolades over the years. Then you turn around and require evidence that they've increased the number of elite players in the league with that in mind? There's clearly no argument to be made here by you. Lidstrom is a prime example of what having elite non-Canadians does to the landscape of the league.

Not a bad response but I think what you left out of it is more important and speaks volumes over than what you actually said.
You know, how it's funny that you specifically left out mentioning Howe or Hull. I wonder why that is...hmmmm

Keep wondering. I'm not covering every player. We have enough tangents already.

Covered this already but I don't mind doing it again quickly.
A) The slapshot
B) Dmen discouraged from rushing the puck

As far as where Kelly and Pilote are concerned...YES, Kelly was superior offensively to Lidstrom and the peer group you have him listed with in that chart. Kelly is in the Potvin/Bourque/Leetch class.
Pilote is about in the same class as Lidstrom, the one BELOW Kelly/Potvin/Bourque/Leetch.

The slapshot and being discouraged to rush the puck is why Harvey produced so few ES points, and fewer than his peers as mentioned earlier? Why did it only affect him? That's the point, it's not just about Kelly anymore. You want to place Lidstrom in a certain group but where does Harvey sit? By all statistical evidence he sits lower than Lidstrom offensively.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tangents

That's not even what happened. You claimed Harvey had more PIMs because he fought so I asked specifically how many fights was he in, as in you know, "how many", "how much", "a quantity", and you proceeded to go ballistic and listed all his credentials as a fighter and his history in a long and unnecessary tirade. Then questioned if I really read the book. It was a very strange exchange but now your account of it has completed changed from reality.



Stan Mikita? His first AS nomination was the same season Harvey had his last. Mikita and Hull were 16 and 15 years younger than Harvey. It's not what you're trying to sell here.

Besides, Harvey only having to face a small group of Canadian defenders is simply far more beneficial to his AS and Norris record and how he is viewed overall. The other defenders of his time had to play against the same forwards over and over again as well, except Harvey was on the most stacked team, other than the Red Wings some seasons, and he had 7 time Vezina winner Plante behind him most years. Again, it's simply not what you're trying to submit here.



I didn't just use raw (straight?) numbers, I used adjusted as well and team finishes. They all have Lidstrom comfortably ahead.

Harvey was as effective offensively at ES as Tim Horton, and trailed Kelly but a wide margin, and trailed Gadsby and Pronovost. He made all of his gains on the PP and in their primes Lidstrom was actually higher up his peer rankings in ES points than Harvey. You can refuse to believe whatever you want. You seem to be refusing to believe that Harvey is more guilty of relying on the PP than Lidstrom even though you criticized the former of this at length over the years.



Do you not realize how ridiculous this sounds? Look at the impact the non-Canadians have had on AS nominations and awards and all the other accolades over the years. Then you turn around and require evidence that they've increased the number of elite players in the league with that in mind? There's clearly no argument to be made here by you. Lidstrom is a prime example of what having elite non-Canadians does to the landscape of the league.



The slapshot and being discouraged to rush the puck is why Harvey produced so few ES points, and fewer than his peers as mentioned earlier? Why did it only affect him? That's the point, it's not just about Kelly anymore. You want to place Lidstrom in a certain group but where does Harvey sit? By all statistical evidence he sits lower than Lidstrom offensively.

Fights. Data is incomplete since the various fight sites list fights based on majors. Double minors where the linesmen stepped in because one player was a superior fighter are not included. Still the basic result was the same, A Howe, Harvey, Horton, etc was removed from play.

Likewise comparable to Red Kelly. Not possible to filter Kelly offensive stats in Detroit by position. Defenceman vs Center or LW.

Non-Canadian. Your use of the term benefits from being rather fuzzy at best. Likewise the use of integrated. The point about Stan Mikita hilites this. Before Doug Harvey entered the NHL there were European born players - Charlie Gardiner, Sweeney Schriner, Johnny Gottselig and others. Likewise plenty of Americans. Interestingly Bill Gadsby was born in Europe, surviving a 1939 sinking of the ship bringing him as a 12 year old and his mother to Canada. Gadsby starting to play hockey at the same age as Canadian Ed Jovanovski, #1 overall pick and a contemporary of Lidstrom is a wash.

Stacked teams. You overlooked the Maple Leafs who were stacked in 1959 and 1960 with the same number or more future HHOFers than the Canadiens. Also overlooked that Lidstrom during his Red Wing career played with more HHOFers and more Norris Trophy winners.

Major problem with your ES/PP analysis is that it completely ignores the key roles of each player. Driving the teams offensive game. Harvey managed an offence that led the NHL in scoring for eight straight seasons(1954 - 1961). Lidstrom's teams did not lead for any combination of eight seasons. Harvey's teams led the NHL in GAA for five straight seasons. Lidstrom's Red Wings never did for five seasons.

The level of dominance is further hilited during the the Canadiens 1956 to 1960 dynasty era by looking at the playoffs.

Canadiens won all ten series, 40W - 9L, outscoring the opposition 182 to 92, a much greater margin than during any regular season.

Playoff scoring vs regular season. Career Lidstrom 0.73PPG vs 0.698PPG. Harvey 0.49PPG vs 0.525PPG, slight advantage Harvey whose production increased during the playoffs while Lidstrom's decreased. On a per game basis Lidstrom looks better but in terms of participation in total team goals the first perception quickly fades.Most telling is Harvey's offensive contribution during the playoffs of the 1956 to 1960 dynasty Canadiens. 49 GP, 8G, 32A = 40 PTS or 0.816PPG. Significantly better than any Lidstrom contribution over a similar stretch of consecutive playoffs.

 

[danincanada]

Fights. Data is incomplete since the various fight sites list fights based on majors. Double minors where the linesmen stepped in because one player was a superior fighter are not included. Still the basic result was the same, A Howe, Harvey, Horton, etc was removed from play.

I've gone through a couple fight sites and your assessment is probably right. Like in so many other ways the data from that era is not great when compared with today. I don't recall a lot of hockey fight stories in the book and I seem to remember it mentioning that Harvey didn't bother with fighting very much. Doesn't really matter to me, except I think he did take a lot more minor penalties than Lidstrom, it wasn't just about fighting.

Likewise comparable to Red Kelly. Not possible to filter Kelly offensive stats in Detroit by position. Defenceman vs Center or LW.

True, and the fact that the water is muddied like this for Harvey's main competition for defender supremacy in Kelly it does not help the argument for him having a lot of elite peers to overcome. The one guy who could challenge him didn't even always play defense.

Non-Canadian. Your use of the term benefits from being rather fuzzy at best. Likewise the use of integrated. The point about Stan Mikita hilites this. Before Doug Harvey entered the NHL there were European born players - Charlie Gardiner, Sweeney Schriner, Johnny Gottselig and others. Likewise plenty of Americans. Interestingly Bill Gadsby was born in Europe, surviving a 1939 sinking of the ship bringing him as a 12 year old and his mother to Canada. Gadsby starting to play hockey at the same age as Canadian Ed Jovanovski, #1 overall pick and a contemporary of Lidstrom is a wash.

Mikita, Gardiner, Schriner, and Gottselig all immigrated to Canada as either infants or children. Clearly not the same as being born in Europe and being brought up there in their minor hockey systems but nice try. Everything I've read of Gadsby has him being born in Calgary.

Stacked teams. You overlooked the Maple Leafs who were stacked in 1959 and 1960 with the same number or more future HHOFers than the Canadiens. Also overlooked that Lidstrom during his Red Wing career played with more HHOFers and more Norris Trophy winners.

Major problem with your ES/PP analysis is that it completely ignores the key roles of each player. Driving the teams offensive game. Harvey managed an offence that led the NHL in scoring for eight straight seasons(1954 - 1961). Lidstrom's teams did not lead for any combination of eight seasons. Harvey's teams led the NHL in GAA for five straight seasons. Lidstrom's Red Wings never did for five seasons.

The level of dominance is further hilited during the the Canadiens 1956 to 1960 dynasty era by looking at the playoffs.

Canadiens won all ten series, 40W - 9L, outscoring the opposition 182 to 92, a much greater margin than during any regular season.

The Canadiens of that era were completely stacked in a 6 team league with not only Harvey but also a deadly group of forwards and the top goalie. This is nothing new but it doesn't directly reflect on Lidstrom or Harvey as individual players. Lidstrom had a larger role in his teams offense as displayed by team finishes earlier in the thread.

Playoff scoring vs regular season. Career Lidstrom 0.73PPG vs 0.698PPG. Harvey 0.49PPG vs 0.525PPG, slight advantage Harvey whose production increased during the playoffs while Lidstrom's decreased. On a per game basis Lidstrom looks better but in terms of participation in total team goals the first perception quickly fades.Most telling is Harvey's offensive contribution during the playoffs of the 1956 to 1960 dynasty Canadiens. 49 GP, 8G, 32A = 40 PTS or 0.816PPG. Significantly better than any Lidstrom contribution over a similar stretch of consecutive playoffs.

Lidstrom had a 5 year playoff stretch where he went 89 GP, 19 G, 49 A = 68 PTS or 0.764 PPG and another 5 year playoff stretch where he went 84 GP, 19 G, 46 A = 65 PTS or 0.774 PPG. The difference is slim and Lidstrom did it twice.

 

[tarheelhockey]

London has not produced a Shakespeare either. He moved there somewhere between ages 20 and 28.

It did produce Ben Jonson and Francis Bacon, which is much better than everything to come up of Topeka since.

I think the point to be made about genius talent is that you could, in theory, have walked into a bar in London and found Shakespeare, Marlowe and Kyd sitting at a table. Likewise, you could have stood on a street corner in Florence in 1480 and successively bumped into da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli. If you picked the right jazz club for a night on the town in 1920s New York, you could have pushed your way past Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker to get a better look at Louis Armstrong.

Meanwhile, it's doubtful that the entire city of New York right now has an artist the caliber of Shakespeare, da Vinci, or Armstrong. Talent isn't an equation where you just add people to get bigger results. Quite often, the more people get involved in something, the more they become "scientifically perfect" at it, and the less genius expresses itself. Witness: the number of obscure and irrelevant painters who can imitate a da Vinci, poets who can compose a Shakespearian sonnet, and trumpeters who can play "St. Louis Blues" note for note. Nobody cares if the notes sound exactly the same -- the difference is in the mind behind the music.

Some sports don't require genius at all, and can be made mathematically perfect. Track, swimming, auto racing are that way. So is baseball, to a large extent. Hockey isn't like that. Hockey permits true genius. Players like Gretzky, Orr, and more recently Datsyuk were not so great because they were the fastest or had the hardest shots. They didn't play a scientifically perfect game. They simply did things that other smart hockey people wouldn't have dreamed of trying, and did it at such a high level that it couldn't be stopped by the best athletes in the game.

That, I think, is the real argument for Harvey over Lidstrom, if there is one at all. Lidstrom is maybe the most scientifically perfect defender there ever was, while Harvey had a certain quality of genius in his game.

 

[danincanada]

I think the point to be made about genius talent is that you could, in theory, have walked into a bar in London and found Shakespeare, Marlowe and Kyd sitting at a table. Likewise, you could have stood on a street corner in Florence in 1480 and successively bumped into da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Botticelli. If you picked the right jazz club for a night on the town in 1920s New York, you could have pushed your way past Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker to get a better look at Louis Armstrong.

Meanwhile, it's doubtful that the entire city of New York right now has an artist the caliber of Shakespeare, da Vinci, or Armstrong. Talent isn't an equation where you just add people to get bigger results. Quite often, the more people get involved in something, the more they become "scientifically perfect" at it, and the less genius expresses itself. Witness: the number of obscure and irrelevant painters who can imitate a da Vinci, poets who can compose a Shakespearian sonnet, and trumpeters who can play "St. Louis Blues" note for note. Nobody cares if the notes sound exactly the same -- the difference is in the mind behind the music.

Some sports don't require genius at all, and can be made mathematically perfect. Track, swimming, auto racing are that way. So is baseball, to a large extent. Hockey isn't like that. Hockey permits true genius. Players like Gretzky, Orr, and more recently Datsyuk were not so great because they were the fastest or had the hardest shots. They didn't play a scientifically perfect game. They simply did things that other smart hockey people wouldn't have dreamed of trying, and did it at such a high level that it couldn't be stopped by the best athletes in the game.

That, I think, is the real argument for Harvey over Lidstrom, if there is one at all. Lidstrom is maybe the most scientifically perfect defender there ever was, while Harvey had a certain quality of genius in his game.

I like what you're saying here and agree with a lot of it. Love you mentioning my boy Datsyuk, too. The only issue I have is separating the genius of Harvey with the genius of Lidstrom. Both were geniuses in their eras. Lidstrom wasn't the fastest, strongest, or biggest but he out thought everyone on the ice. His positioning and anticipation defensively was on an incredibly high level and he could obviously use that hockey brain for offense as well. Harvey's was great in similar ways for his era too but Lidstrom had to overcome a lot more competition because hockey had grown a lot since Harvey's era. I don't know where we'll see another argument for weighing a domestically composed league equally with an internationally composed league. It's such a world of difference between the two, especially considering when hockey started to grow in Canada and the fact that it clearly didn't peak in the first half of the 20th century. People should not get fooled by the NHL name and the fact that the hockey power Canada was the one nation.

I like equating hockey with art or music in some ways but the difference is it's sport and therefore competition. Art/music is not a competition.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Clarifications

I've gone through a couple fight sites and your assessment is probably right. Like in so many other ways the data from that era is not great when compared with today. I don't recall a lot of hockey fight stories in the book and I seem to remember it mentioning that Harvey didn't bother with fighting very much. Doesn't really matter to me, except I think he did take a lot more minor penalties than Lidstrom, it wasn't just about fighting.



True, and the fact that the water is muddied like this for Harvey's main competition for defender supremacy in Kelly it does not help the argument for him having a lot of elite peers to overcome. The one guy who could challenge him didn't even always play defense.



Mikita, Gardiner, Schriner, and Gottselig all immigrated to Canada as either infants or children. Clearly not the same as being born in Europe and being brought up there in their minor hockey systems but nice try. Everything I've read of Gadsby has him being born in Calgary.



The Canadiens of that era were completely stacked in a 6 team league with not only Harvey but also a deadly group of forwards and the top goalie. This is nothing new but it doesn't directly reflect on Lidstrom or Harvey as individual players. Lidstrom had a larger role in his teams offense as displayed by team finishes earlier in the thread.



Lidstrom had a 5 year playoff stretch where he went 89 GP, 19 G, 49 A = 68 PTS or 0.764 PPG and another 5 year playoff stretch where he went 84 GP, 19 G, 46 A = 65 PTS or 0.774 PPG. The difference is slim and Lidstrom did it twice.

Yes, Harvey took more minors than Lidstrom. 2 for 1 deal. In Harvey the team had a combination of Chelios and Lidstrom who stood up for himself and his teammates. Roster spots were used for talented players instead of role players as a result.

Kelly playing forward goes to the depth and talent level of the Red Wings. Horton playing forward likewise for the Leafs, Mohns for the Bruins. Teams could cover for players playing out of position.

Fact of the matter is that both of the above go against your point about the Canadiens being stacked. The Canadiens had the greatest roster diversity. From the dynasty team, looking at the five year players. Only Tom Johnson amongst the defencemen could not play forward. Turner, Talbot and Harvey(started as a center) could. Forwards, virtually all could play center and a wing or both wings. Don Marshall could play all three. Unlike Detroit, the Canadiens found it advantageous to anchor Harvey on defence. Plus for Harvey not a negative.

Your last paragraph is inaccurate. Lidstrom in the five year stretches you mention saw his Playoff PPG surpass his Career Regular Season PPG by 0.034 and 0.044 PPG - your numbers applied.Harvey in his five year stretch surpassed his regular season PPG by 0.326, a significantly greater amount. During the stretch the team won over 81% of their games, while defensively the team surpassed their regular season GAA in 4 out of the five playoff runs. Lidstrom never had such an impact offensively and defensively over a consecutive five year stretch.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The only issue I have is separating the genius of Harvey with the genius of Lidstrom. Both were geniuses in their eras. Lidstrom wasn't the fastest, strongest, or biggest but he out thought everyone on the ice. His positioning and anticipation defensively was on an incredibly high level and he could obviously use that hockey brain for offense as well.

I'm with you up until the bolded. While Lidstrom had truly outstanding offensive skill -- especially as a passer in open ice -- he was not a special thinker offensively.

Defensively, yes, he was on another level. More in the range of virtuoso technique than artistic genius, but still. There was usually a big gap between him and his next-best peer defensively.

Harvey's was great in similar ways for his era too but Lidstrom had to overcome a lot more competition because hockey had grown a lot since Harvey's era.

Again, among the 9,000,000 people living in London today, including thousands of professional writers, there is not one who could empty the chamber pot of Shakespeare, who lived in a city only 2% the size. Highest-level talent is not a numbers game.

I like equating hockey with art or music in some ways but the difference is it's sport and therefore competition. Art/music is not a competition.

Art and music are most definitely competitions at the professional level.

 

[Fugu]

I'm with you up until the bolded. While Lidstrom had truly outstanding offensive skill -- especially as a passer in open ice -- he was not a special thinker offensively.

Defensively, yes, he was on another level. More in the range of virtuoso technique than artistic genius, but still. There was usually a big gap between him and his next-best peer defensively.

What does this even mean? Who is your best example, outside Orr, that is a special thinker offensively?

Lidstrom is top 5, but Harvey is #2.

Orr may be #1, then Lidstrom at #2.

 

[danincanada]

Yes, Harvey took more minors than Lidstrom. 2 for 1 deal. In Harvey the team had a combination of Chelios and Lidstrom who stood up for himself and his teammates. Roster spots were used for talented players instead of role players as a result.

Chelios didn't take a lot of penalties due to standing up for his teammates though, it was more about bending the rules and getting caught or being plain dirty. Lidstrom simply rarely took penalties and therefore rarely put himself in the box or put his team down a man. Wouldn't a coach prefer a "role player" sit in the box instead of your best defenseman anyways?

Kelly playing forward goes to the depth and talent level of the Red Wings. Horton playing forward likewise for the Leafs, Mohns for the Bruins. Teams could cover for players playing out of position.

Depth and talent where though? If they were taking a player from the back end and playing him at forward then either that "defenseman" was more valuable up front or they had more depth on defense than forward. Didn't Kelly play more forward with the Leafs than the Wings?

Fact of the matter is that both of the above go against your point about the Canadiens being stacked. The Canadiens had the greatest roster diversity. From the dynasty team, looking at the five year players. Only Tom Johnson amongst the defencemen could not play forward. Turner, Talbot and Harvey(started as a center) could. Forwards, virtually all could play center and a wing or both wings. Don Marshall could play all three. Unlike Detroit, the Canadiens found it advantageous to anchor Harvey on defence. Plus for Harvey not a negative.

How can anything point to the Habs not being stacked in that era? They had Plante in net, two scoring lines, the top defenseman, and even when Harvey wasn't at his best his teammate stepped up and won the Norris. Sure, diverse but also stacked.

My point still stands about Kelly playing as a forward. He was Harvey's main competition for the Norris but playing forward would confuse voters in this regard. If your top competition for the Norris is playing forward he's no longer your top competition.

Your last paragraph is inaccurate. Lidstrom in the five year stretches you mention saw his Playoff PPG surpass his Career Regular Season PPG by 0.034 and 0.044 PPG - your numbers applied.Harvey in his five year stretch surpassed his regular season PPG by 0.326, a significantly greater amount. During the stretch the team won over 81% of their games, while defensively the team surpassed their regular season GAA in 4 out of the five playoff runs. Lidstrom never had such an impact offensively and defensively over a consecutive five year stretch.

It wasn't inaccurate at all. It was exactly what I presented but you are going into something else, which is comparing Harvey against himself and Lidstrom against himself. If Lidstrom produced more offensively during the season then how can you give so much props to Harvey for simply bringing his playoff play up to Lidstrom's regular standard in terms of offense? We don't have adjusted numbers for the playoffs but that's what it seems like to me anyways.