Nicklas Lidstrom vs Doug Harvey

[Dennis Bonvie]

Defenseman historically get shafted in Hart Trophy voting. And I wasn't alive when Harvey played. Or when Eddie Shore played. But I have read al its every thread in the History section on these boards. Hundreds of hockey books and articles.

Here is my argument:

Orr was the best player in the world after his rookie season until he stopped playing. He should have 8 or 9 Harts not 3.

Eddie Shore has 3 Harts and was widely regarded by almost everyone of his era and in hindsight that for most of his career he was the best player in the NHL or the world.

I think Kelly and far moreso Harvey get shafted in voting or respect both contemporilly... Or in hindsight.

I will say with all I have read and understood. I think after Howe's peak years in early 50's Harvey was the best player in the world... The very best in 5 straight Cup teams... The greatest dynasty ever. At Harvey's best he was better then Rocket or Geoffrion or Beliveau. I think he was the best player in the world for 5 or 6 years and his peak after he exceeded Kelly around 53 or 54 was far better then every other defenseman. Not like Bourque exceeding Chelios... Like Hasek in his Hart years exceeding other goalies... Or Mario or Gretzky exceeding other forwards. He was that much better then other D-men... And not for a year or two but for 6 or 8 seasons.

So best player on the planet for 5-7 years and best defenseman by a Wide margin for 7 or 8... Kelly was close at start of that run or it would be a decade.

So I rank them like this:

Orr
Shore
Harvey

Bourque
Lidstrom
Potvin

Best player in the world:
First half of 50's Howe
Second half Harvey.

Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin were never the best player in the world clearly for years. Harvey was... He outranks them... Who cares if the league had 6 teams or that 90% were Canadian? He was the best player on the planet for a significant number of consecutive years... That crushes being on of the best in a deeper league in my estimation.

Posted from
My phone! Sorry for typos!

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Did anyone really think that at the time?

 

[danincanada]

The talent pool is deeper but it does not logically follow that it means the cream of the crop is better. The truly elite players are outliers.

You're right, it's not that simple of course but the truly elite players are considered that way only due to comparisons with their peers. Remove all the Europeans and Americans from the NHL these past 10 years and suddenly we're missing many of the elite players. It makes the other elite players appear more elite than they are.

Take Shea Weber as an example. Remove Chara and Lidstrom from the league and he probably has a couple Norris trophies already. Harvey didn't face the same type of competition that there is today and that influences everything. Not only top end players but even the average player...the talent pool wasn't there.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Or was it? Unless you actually have some proof of what you are alleging here, it's a good bet EVERYTHING was a result of his Union affiliations.
It was a dirty, dirty time back then and NOTHING was out of bounds for those owners.

Lindsay was traded after the '57 season and Harvey after the '61 season. Management claimed it was because of age and diminished skill, but Harvey maintained it was because of his union affiliation. I think it was a combination of both, plus the drinking. Selke was a union member himself and obviously was not as much of a hard-case about it as Jack Adams was.

The Rangers let him go in the fall of '63.

 

[danincanada]

Come on Dan. You know better than to use raw stats to compare players from entirely different eras. If someone used raw stats to show how much better Bourque was offensively than Lidstrom, you'd cry fowl, right?

Of course, I acknowledged they are at face value.

It was a response to an even more absurd post.

 

[Sens Rule]

lets say that LONG TIME AGO there was just one hockey player. He was the VERY BEST of all those years he was playing. He dominated like no tomorrow.

Who cares if the league had only 1 player or that 100% were Canadian? He was the best player on the planet for a significant number of consecutive years... That crushes being on of the best in a deeper league in my estimation.


(The talent pool is deeper now but it does not logically follow that it means the cream of the crap is better. The truly elite players are outliers.)

If Shore was the best if say all that played hockey in the 30's. Let's say he is 1/30,000 hockey players in the world.

And Harvey or Howe were the best of 100,000.

And Orr was the best of 250,000 and Gretzky the best of 400,000

If Lidstrom is say the 7th best of his time overall... And he is 7/700,000 does that make him better than Shore or Harvey? I don't think so.

I was making up the numbers... But Just to add to the argument... Hockey is played by a lot more adults in Canada now then it is in Europe... Probably 85% of registered organized 14 year old plus hockey players in the world are in Canada and the USA...

Also interesting... After Canada Finland had the most hockey players per person... And strangely... Either Estonia or Latvia has more hockey players per capita then any other country (can't remember which one!) even more than Sweden and that surprises me.

It is not like with the influx of European players suddenly there were 200 million Russians to draw from. Organized hockey is not played by a very large percentage of Russians.

There is a bigger pool of players to choose from for the NHL... But there are 30 teams not 6 teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If Shore was the best if say all that played hockey in the 30's. Let's say he is 1/30,000 hockey players in the world.

And Harvey or Howe were the best of 100,000.

And Orr was the best of 250,000 and Gretzky the best of 400,000

If Lidstrom is say the 7th best of his time overall... And he is 7/700,000 does that make him better than Shore or Harvey? I don't think so.

I was making up the numbers... But Just to add to the argument... Hockey is played by a lot more adults in Canada now then it is in Europe... Probably 85% of registered organized 14 year old plus hockey players in the world are in Canada and the USA...

Also interesting... After Canada Finland had the most hockey players per person... And strangely... Either Estonia or Latvia has more hockey players per capita then any other country (can't remember which one!) even more than Sweden and that surprises me.

It is not like with the influx of European players suddenly there were 200 million Russians to draw from. Organized hockey is not played by a very large percentage of Russians.

There is a bigger pool of players to choose from for the NHL... But there are 30 teams not 6 teams.

The NHL is about 50% Canadian now. Though for whatever reason, most of the European talent seems to go to forward and goal. Other than Lidstrom himself and Chara, there really don't seem to be any elite European defensemen now.

And I'm pretty sure that Lidstrom was better than 7th best in the world over... pretty much any span of years since 1998 or so.

 

[Sens Rule]

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Did anyone really think that at the time?

Yes I think some did. In hindsight it is even more obvious... Read the post just above as to how much Harvey changed the game and how it was played. I say from all I have read and the accounts and quotes I have heard... Those 5 Habs Cups in a row... Harvey is easily the most important player... More then Beliveau or Plante or Rocket... He completely controlled the game and changed it and he was on the greatest dynasty ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes I think some did. In hindsight it is even more obvious... Read the post just above as to how much Harvey changed the game and how it was played. I say from all I have read and the accounts and quotes I have heard... Those 5 Habs Cups in a row... Harvey is easily the most important player... More then Beliveau or Plante or Rocket... He completely controlled the game and changed it and he was on the greatest dynasty ever.

You sure throw the word "easily" around often.

Hart Trophy voting and many anecdotal accounts would have Beliveau as the most important player, though I agree that Harvey definitely has a case.

 

[Sens Rule]

You sure throw the word "easily" around often.

Hart Trophy voting and many anecdotal accounts would have Beliveau as the most important player, though I agree that Harvey definitely has a case.

I say easily for those 5 years... Overall Beliveau may be better... By early 60's he was better... For those 5 years I think Harvey was the core... Dominant member of that team...

Though you are right should have said probably not easily.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Really

Speaking to how Harvey changed the way defensemen played the game:



One thing that does get overlooked about Harvey is he is not the best leader and was often a nightmare for management.

I've read a few places he was constantly late for practices, and he may have been a full-fledged alcoholic already in the 50s. It was not just his affiliation with the Player's Union that got him traded away from Montreal while still in his prime.

Then explain the following.

1961-62 after being traded to the Rangers to be the player-coach Harvey LEADS the Rangers to a surprise 4th place finish.

Known fact that Harvey and Red Sullivan did not get along as players and the Rangers under Sullivan who replaced Patrick as coach in 1962-63 eventually got rid of all the old Rangers who did not get along with him as teammates.

The Canadiens brought back Harvey into their farm system at Quebec - AHL where he worked with the younger players. He was a call-up to help the Junior Canadiens with 5 other ACES to play the Olympic Champion Soviets in 1964. So obviously the Canadiens trusted him to help their farm team and not be a negative influence on their juniors.

 

[Killion]

Lindsay was traded after the '57 season and Harvey after the '61 season. Management claimed it was because of age and diminished skill, but Harvey maintained it was because of his union affiliation. I think it was a combination of both, plus the drinking. Selke was a union member himself and obviously was not as much of a hard-case about it as Jack Adams was. The Rangers let him go in the fall of '63.

Uh oh, taking some heet over this one huh Rabbins?.

No question his card was marked by the league over his union activities, including the Habs who didnt retire his number until 1985, 12 years after his HHOF induction in 73. In addition to being a rather "thirsty" individual, he was also diagnosed with bi-polarity, double whammy.

Thing is, he was such a great player AND leader (he took over the 'C' from Richard in 60) by example & deed that Montreal, always a classy organization and as C58 points out had no problem entrusting him with the development of its futures. He won the Norris in New York as well, his 7th dont forget, so ya, I agree Montreal was hasty in shipping him out.... he retired, came back with Detroit for a bit, played in the minors, got involved with the WHA (more enmity from the NHL) and was instrumental in bringing the Howes to Texas.

Wound up living out his days in John Diefenbakers' (Canadas PM & Leader of the Conservative Party back in the 50's & early 60's) former luxury Railway Car on the grounds of Connaught Park RaceTrack in Aylmer PQ, owned & operated by one of hockeys "Royal Families", the Gormans; Tommy, one of the founders of the NHL & 4X Stanley Cup Winner, his sons Joe & Frank...

 

[overpass]

One thing that does get overlooked about Harvey is he is not the best leader and was often a nightmare for management.

I've read a few places he was constantly late for practices, and he may have been a full-fledged alcoholic already in the 50s. It was not just his affiliation with the Player's Union that got him traded away from Montreal while still in his prime.

Jean Beliveau had no problems with Doug Harvey as a team player or leader. Beliveau on Harvey, from his autobiography "My Life in Hockey":

Beside Bouchard, the other influential veteran on the Canadiens when I joined them was Doug Harvey. Doug was a one-man welcome wagon. If a rookie needed anything, he could go to Doug. He was a team man on the ice, in the dressing room, and on the road.

Besides, his drinking didn't affect his play. He never showed up at a game the worse for wear...Doug enjoyed his parties, but he never hurt anyone, with the possible exception of himself.

When Doug went to New York, Frank Selke came in for a good deal of criticism. People said he'd banished Doug because of his work on the executive of the National Hockey League Player's Association. Selke had already traded Dollard St. Laurent to Chicago, apparently for similar reasons. Perhaps those accusations were true, but it wasn't like Frank Selke to run with the pack. I always thought that by sending Doug to New York, Selke was offering him the chance at a second career. If he'd stuck with coaching, he could have done well, but only if he had brought his personal life under control.

Here's what Beliveau had to say about Harvey's on-ice play.

Oh, and Doug Harvey was also the best NHL defenseman who ever lived. No exceptions. Offensively, of course, Bobby Orr was his better. Orr was so fast that he could take chances in an opponent's zone, then rush back to his blue line if his sortie did not work out. That said, Bobby Orr could not do everything. Doug Harvey could - a judgement shared by Doug's teammates, his opponents, and anyone who had the good fortune to marvel at his on-ice abilities.

Defensively, Harvey was far superior to Orr and thus to anybody he faced. As described earlier, he was probably the finest natural athlete ever to play our game. Scouts, managers, and sportswriters argued endlessly about his equal abilities in baseball, football, and hockey. His stamina was a marvel to behold. If the Canadiens had lost two or more players to injury, especially in the middle of a road trip, Doug would play all night. If he needed a rest, or thought the game was getting too frisky for his liking, he'd simply slow it down.

How could a single player dictate the tempo of a game? Simply by controlling the puck and defying any and all corners to take it from him. Forecheckers were reluctant to challenge him because he could easily handle them physically or embarrass them with a sudden move. When an opponent got careless, Doug would let go with a long pass that would spring a teammate into the open for a breakaway. Even at the end of his career, when he came up with St. Louis for the 1968 play-offs thirty pounds overweight and barely able to skate, he was still directing the game in subtle ways.

When Doug was on the ice, you played his way or you didn’t play at all. Many sports fans like to indulge in “what if” speculations, wondering how players from my era would fare if they time-traveled to today’s NHL. Doug Harvey would fare very well, especially when up against a number of today’s wingers who have the habit of hanging around the boards at their own blue lines, waiting for the breakout pass from a defenseman. Doug used to tell our forwards, “I won’t give you the puck if you’re not skating. If you’re standing still, if you park yourself near the boards and wait for a pass from me, it won’t come. You’ll die of old age standing there. If you want the puck, you’ll get it on the fly.”

We skated and he got us the puck.

 

[canucks4ever]

Orr is better than harvey, beliveau is just being bitter because orr is ranked above both. Orr was winning norrises before he put up big numbers and harvey didnt become elite until he was 27.

Bobby Orr could not do everything? Thats funny because i remember beliveau saying back in 1971 that orr did everything including blocking shots. Its easier to be better defensively when harvey plays a supportive offensive role, he was never asked to carry the offense. Beliveau is bitter because orr is greater than him.

 

[overpass]

Orr is better than harvey, beliveau is just being bitter because orr is ranked above both. Orr was winning norrises before he put up big numbers and harvey didnt become elite until he was 27.

Bobby Orr could not do everything? Thats funny because i remember beliveau saying back in 1971 that orr did everything including blocking shots. Its easier to be better defensively when harvey plays a supportive offensive role, he was never asked to carry the offense. Beliveau is bitter because orr is greater than him.

I don't agree with Beliveau either that Harvey was better than Orr.

But there's no need to call Beliveau "bitter" and impugn his motives because you don't share his opinion. Jean Beliveau is the definition of classy. Can the same be said about you?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pretty sure Beliveau wasn't losing sleep over who was ranked where on all-time lists...

 

[HabsByTheBay]

Pretty sure Beliveau wasn't losing sleep over who was ranked where on all-time lists...

Except for who was ranked #1 in Cups won as a captain...

Le gros Bill FTW.

 

[canucks4ever]

I don't agree with Beliveau either that Harvey was better than Orr.

But there's no need to call Beliveau "bitter" and impugn his motives because you don't share his opinion. Jean Beliveau is the definition of classy. Can the same be said about you?

Is it really his opinion though, because there are other posts where beliveau claims orr is the only one that 'does' everything. I think he was being nice to his teammate.

 

[lolwut]

I wouldn't put much emphasis on quotes. Anyone can quote mine from articles, HOF players, and coaches to pump someone up.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Wow! Is someone actually accusing a guy, who is generally regarded as the classiest player in history, of being bitter and vindictive?

Seriously Ush, what little credit you had, just went bye bye bigtime.

 

[jkrx]

Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Did anyone really think that at the time?

It is true about Howe and I'm sure there were fans who thought so about Harvey but I dont think he was regarded in that way by the rest of the hockey world.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Its easier to be better defensively when harvey plays a supportive offensive role, he was never asked to carry the offense.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Interesting perspective.

Sounds pretty familiar eh

Its easier to be better defensively when Harvey Lidstrom plays a supportive offensive role, he was never asked to carry the offense.

Just to get the point across. Gotta hit Ush with a hammer sometimes

 

[Sens Rule]

Orr is better than harvey, beliveau is just being bitter because orr is ranked above both. Orr was winning norrises before he put up big numbers and harvey didnt become elite until he was 27.

Bobby Orr could not do everything? Thats funny because i remember beliveau saying back in 1971 that orr did everything including blocking shots. Its easier to be better defensively when harvey plays a supportive offensive role, he was never asked to carry the offense. Beliveau is bitter because orr is greater than him.

I don't think of Beliveau as a bitter guy at all... ever.

He said Harvey was the best defenceman ever... because he thought he was. And he played AGAINST ORR at his best. He could be wrong. He could be biased unintentionally because he played with Harvey for so long.

From those quotes I don't get bitterness at all. I don't just don't see Beliveau as a bitter guy whatsoever. What has Beliveau got to be bitter about in anything in his life?

You can say he is not right in his opinions, or that he was biased towards a teammate but bitterness?

 

[canucks4ever]

Sounds pretty familiar eh



Just to get the point across. Gotta hit Ush with a hammer sometimes

Orr produced way more offense than bourque, haha its not even close. Asw for beliveau knocking orr for being way worse defensively, thats funny because orr won a norris as a 19 year old, harvey didnt become relevant until he 27. Back in 1971, beliveau was saying orr scores, he backchecks, he blocks shots, what more can the guy do? Now he says orr didnt do everything? I dont think orr was a hart nominee because of his '31' points. In order for a d-man to gain that type of hart consideration elite defense and controlling games is a requirement.

Most superstars do gain a form of bitterness when they sit home and watch another player surpass them in legacy, it happens all the time. Being classy is entirely different. You dont think kareem abdul jabbar is a bit jealous of michael jordan, or older soccer players are a bit jealous of ronaldo because he surpassed them, it happens in every sport.

 

[Sens Rule]

I wouldn't put much emphasis on quotes. Anyone can quote mine from articles, HOF players, and coaches to pump someone up.

We can dismiss former players opinions.. clearly they have bias like any other person has bias.. bias they might not even be aware of. If I read what Ken Dryden or Jean Beliveau actually said and wrote... I'll take that as having a lot of value... more then a sportswriter or a fan.

If I hear Gretzky saying something... I take it a different way... but value it. Gretzky got excited and said a lot of things about a lot of players. He wasn't trying to be insightful about things in a historical perspective. But it is still Wayne Freaking Gretzky. If he says great things about Steve Kasper... he might not be right or he might have been excited. But if Wayne Gretzky is saying something glowing about another player.. it has merit. A lot more merit than hacks like Stan Fischler or a fan like me that read a lot in a lot of sources but knows nothing of real NHL hockey.

Funny to say Beliveau is bitter. He strikes me as one of the least bitter guys ever. He is a grateful, happy content man that had a long career after hockey in hockey.

Harvey might have been a bitter man. He died alone and broke in a railway car as an alcoholic when he is one of the greatest athletes and hockey players in the history of his country or any other. Shore was a bitter, petty, awful man. By all accounts. Beliveau? Really? Howe got shafted by the Wings... Beliveau made big money and was treated like royalty.