Who would still be a star?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If the claim is that it was harder to make the NHL as a younger player in Harvey's day, I think it's sufficient useful to simply show the number of younger players in the NHL.

Of course, Harvey's time in the Navy is also relevant. Plus, what hasn't been mentioned is that in the Original 6 days, it was MUCH harder to make the good teams than the bad ones.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No, its not, and thats not your decision nor prerogative to be making. If you'd like to single out Doug Harvey, theres this...



... he wasnt even available, late bloomer. In fact, a multi~sport talent and at that time had other options before & after serving his country but fortunately for the NHL, the Habs & the game of hockey itself, opted to play, go pro. And every Defenceman who followed including Bobby Orr owes him a debt of gratitude & thanks. He changed the game & it seems a lot of people forget that.



Absolutely. You can splice & dice it a million ways from Sunday in your Ronco Veg-O-Matic, your thesis, solid no matter how thin anyone wants to chop it up.

I'll stand corrected but the Buffalo Bisons in the AHL were not during Harvey's Navy time and were the Montreal Royals in the QSHL?

 

[Killion]

If the claim is that it was harder to make the NHL as a younger player in Harvey's day, I think it's sufficient to simply show the number of younger players in the NHL.... Of course, Harvey's time in the Navy is also relevant. Plus, what hasn't been mentioned is that in the Original 6 days, it was MUCH harder to make the good teams than the bad ones.

Sure enough. And an interesting era, the Depression with WW2 and the aftermath, took several years thereafter for (specifically) Montreal to recover, close shave that they even existed. The arrival of Dick Irvin Sr., Maurice Richard & Frank Selke who then built up the farm system which bore all kinds of fruit well into the 70's. During the War years teenagers employed; Harry Lumley for example. Some stuck around, others displaced by returning vets, a number of returning vets never really returning to full form, toiling in the AHL etc for years afterwards or retiring. As the "product" or talent was entirely Canadian, the Leafs & Canadiens had to a large degree a lock on Juniors, depth at the amateur through Senior levels. If your play was substandard (or even if you got injured), a few guys on the farm capable of taking your spot. The business model was changing through the War years & into the 50's big time. Hardly accidental Toronto & Montreal dominated from the late 50's through to 1967 but for that one blip with Chicago.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If the claim is that it was harder to make the NHL as a younger player in Harvey's day, I think it's sufficient to simply show the number of younger players in the NHL.

Of course, Harvey's time in the Navy is also relevant. Plus, what hasn't been mentioned is that in the Original 6 days, it was MUCH harder to make the good teams than the bad ones.

Isn't this always the case though?

Even so in his rookie year he was 23 years old and spent 23 games in the AHL and did have the physical tools to step in and play it wasn't like he was a small player who needed to gain strength or something.

The claim being made that "it was more difficult for a young player to break into the NHL during Harvey's time than Lidstrom's era" just isn't holding water and is a wash at best.

Harvey also didn't receive a single post season all star vote in his first 4 years in the league and had his first at age 27 in circumstances, ie competition levels that were much "easier", ie less competitive than Lidstrom in the early 90's.

Both guys were probably under apprenticed with their styles early on but really the level that some, not you specifically, people here go to downgrade one guy then make excuses for the other really seems to indicate a bias here.


Another Vancouver poster here (MS I think) posted as much in how the pre 80's guys seem to get different treatment than the post 80's guys and really at times it becomes mind boggling as to why this is the case.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Isn't this always the case though?

Even so in his rookie year he was 23 years old and spent 23 games in the AHL and did have the physical tools to step in and play it wasn't like he was a small player who needed to gain strength or something.

The claim being made that "it was more difficult for a young player to break into the NHL during Harvey's time than Lidstrom's era" just isn't holding water and is a wash at best.

Harvey also didn't receive a single post season all star vote in his first 4 years in the league and had his first at age 27 in circumstances, ie competition levels that were much "easier", ie less competitive than Lidstrom in the early 90's.

Both guys were probably under apprenticed with their styles early on but really the level that some, not you specifically, people here go to downgrade one guy then make excuses for the other really seems to indicate a bias here.


Another Vancouver poster here (MS I think) posted as much in how the pre 80's guys seem to get different treatment than the post 80's guys and really at times it becomes mind boggling as to why this is the case.

Not really like it is today. Back then with the C-form and no entry draft, Montreal and Toronto and to a lesser extent Detroit basically horded all the best players. Not like today when teams cycle between good and bad... the Rangers and Blackhawks were bad for a very long time

Anyway, I agree with you that the situations facing Harvey and Lidstrom when they broke into the league were similar. I do think Harvey peaked higher though, which is why I have him #2 behind Orr.

(I guess this has basically become an off-topic history discussion thread now, which is fine, once in awhile those are good, and the original topic died out long ago).

 

[Killion]

I'll stand corrected but the Buffalo Bisons in the AHL were not during Harvey's Navy time and were the Montreal Royals in the QSHL?

He played for both, yes, the Royals in that grey area of amateur/pro or "Shamateur" if you will, competing for the Allan Cup. The Bisons of course totally pro, AHL.... interesting side~note is that the Royals in the 30's outdrew the NHL Canadiens, so you could say they were almost responsible for nearly driving the team out of the city, the Habs in desperate straights there for several years. In fact in the early 50's after the Habs had gotten their feet under them & act together, the NHL was looking at admitting the Royals into the league as a 2nd Montreal franchise as they were that popular. Felt Montreal could perhaps support 2 teams as they had previously. Talk as well of admitting the Quebec Aces.

Not really like it is today. Back then with the C-form and no entry draft, Montreal and Toronto and to a lesser extent Detroit basically horded all the best players. Not like today when teams cycle between good and bad... the Rangers and Blackhawks were bad for a very long time.

Ya, quite a different model. Too bad on several levels really that the Rangers in particular werent a whole lot more successful in the 50's & 60's. New York the center of television in its early days, of advertising agencies & corporate head offices. Huge population who had they been gripped with a winning team, and who then fanned out to California & the southeast etc in subsequent years, then the game of hockey & the NHL itself I think wouldve been much further advanced than it is in the US.

 

[danincanada]

Isn't this always the case though?

Even so in his rookie year he was 23 years old and spent 23 games in the AHL and did have the physical tools to step in and play it wasn't like he was a small player who needed to gain strength or something.

The claim being made that "it was more difficult for a young player to break into the NHL during Harvey's time than Lidstrom's era" just isn't holding water and is a wash at best.

Harvey also didn't receive a single post season all star vote in his first 4 years in the league and had his first at age 27 in circumstances, ie competition levels that were much "easier", ie less competitive than Lidstrom in the early 90's.

Both guys were probably under apprenticed with their styles early on but really the level that some, not you specifically, people here go to downgrade one guy then make excuses for the other really seems to indicate a bias here.

Another Vancouver poster here (MS I think) posted as much in how the pre 80's guys seem to get different treatment than the post 80's guys and really at times it becomes mind boggling as to why this is the case.

Precisely. It's very telling that some posters choose to excuse Harvey for playing a couple seasons in the QSHL and half a season in the AHL but harp on Lidstrom for playing in Sweden, especially when he still came over a year earlier.

It's really a waste of time to even discuss who should be punished more for starting in the NHL later when both players went on to have very long and successful careers.

And you're right, Harvey wasn't an instant all-star in the NHL either. This only gets brought up for Lidstrom, who appeared to have a better rookie season anyways. These guys were very similar in a lot of ways but only one gets nit-picked.

 

[Killion]

And you're right, Harvey wasn't an instant all-star in the NHL either. This only gets brought up for Lidstrom. These guys were very similar in a lot of ways but only one gets nit-picked.

Oh? Thats not accurate and your quite right. A lot of similarities. More in common than not. Defenceman are like fine wines, get better with age. Even Orr. All of them. Playing that position, constantly learning, refining your game.

 

[danincanada]

Oh? Thats not accurate and your quite right. A lot of similarities. More in common than not. Defenceman are like fine wines, get better with age. Even Orr. All of them. Playing that position, constantly learning, refining your game.

Exactly. That's what I always wondered about Orr, too. Injuries didn't allow him to mature into the defenseman he could be. His offensive output would probably be reduced later on but his overall game may have become even better if he could play into his late 20's and 30's. Just in time to square off with a young Gretzky. Too bad the hockey world missed out on that. If Orr could have played into his mid to late 30's he would have even faced Lemieux.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Take a larger sample size than a single season to show the "sign of the times" then.
Do a 5 year spread, with 2 years on either side of the one mentioned with the number of players playing at 18, 19 and 20 years old.
My claim will bare fruit.

Okay, let's see it then. Demonstrate your claim.

You mean like fellow countryman Mats Sundin, who was a year younger, drafted the same year as Lidstrom and played in the NHL at 19, a year sooner than Lidstrom oops

No, I mean on the whole. Larger sample size, etc. One example is not enough.

No, its not, and thats not your decision nor prerogative to be making.

It's my opinion, Killion. Anyone involved in the discussion can express such, is that not right? And it's justified, because the point under discussion was whether or not it was more difficult, regardless of the reason.

If you'd like to single out Doug Harvey, theres this...

I don't want to single out Doug Harvey. Indeed, if I were to pick one of Harvey or Lidstrom, I'd be very tempted to pick Harvey. I'm discussing one claim only here, that it was more difficult for a young player to break into the NHL at the beginning of Harvey's career than at the beginning of Lidstrom's.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

... he wasnt even available, late bloomer.

Harvey played hockey throughout the war. In the Montreal National Defence hockey league, the Junior Amateur Hockey Association, and a few others. And the point is that even after the war, he still spent two seasons in senior hockey. This fact is being downplayed because it is claimed that this would have been more common back in the day. But that does not appear to be true. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated yet.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Harvey played hockey throughout the war. In the Montreal National Defence hockey league, the Junior Amateur Hockey Association, and a few others. And the point is that even after the war, he still spent two seasons in senior hockey. This fact is being downplayed because it is claimed that this would have been more common back in the day. But that does not appear to be true. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated yet.

It WAS more common. Jean Beliveau ring a bell?
Many players were very content to play in these Leagues that were just a hair under the NHL for talent and level of play in many cases. Its not like it was about money, they all made peanuts and all worked second jobs.
Unlike the SEL in the late 80's/90's which was a 3rd tier League behind both the AHL and the Russian League.

 

[danincanada]

Oh are we back to revisionism with Lidstrom again that he was already in 1997 form in 1991? Gimme a break, Lidstrom had to learn, improve and grow into his style. When he rounded into form and was successful, he was recognized for it. There was no "Oh, how did we miss that in '91 or '92 going on because he quite simply wasn't as good at it then period.
Harvey came into the League playing his "new" style and was not understood for years. Once he was though...60 years later and all that again heh.

I never claimed any of this - of course. Lidstrom was always good defensively though. He was smart positionally, and very aware and conscientious defensively. He needed to get stronger though and refine his game, just like all yound D.

Because Lidstrom was good offensively and not physical many people did label him as being offense-only. I watched him all the time so I knew better, even early on. People were even surprised when Bowman matched him up against Lindros in the '97 finals and that was much later on. That's when Lidstrom was 27, the same age Harvey got his first AS nomination.

The hell they are!!! They are a part of the equation, a piece that needs to be assigned a weight amongst multiple other factors. They are NOT a final answer, they are NOT alone and their accuracy worsens the further you go from the median.
I don't ignore them, I factor them in along with every factor.
You use them as your ONLY piece of evidence.
The only person ignoring anything is you when you only use AS's and ignore anything else thank you very much.

First off, calm down. Nobody should get this excited about adjusted stats.

Second, I didn't use them as the only factor. I also showed team finishes and looked at raw stats. You tried to show a vague comparison with the top scoring forward in the league. Who had more evidence and which are more relevant?

And again, the biggest difference between them is goal totals and that's perfectly understandable considering the Slapshot's role in Dman goals today.

As you mentioned earlier there are lot of other factors as well. Fronting has become huge in todays game and it makes it extremely difficult for dmen to even get pucks through. Goaltenders are too well equipped to stop pucks as well. Most are huge, athletic, their equipment makes it too easy to stop pucks, and they have their own coaches. Having a slapshot would be awesome back in the 50's because the goalies were ill equipped to stop them but having one now isn't what it used to be.

Again, there's no backup going on, there's no last minute substitution as you're implying. I'm up front every single damned time.
I have Harvey over Bourque because he controlled the game better and changed the game forever.
Orr changed the role of Dmen, making them now part of the offensive schemes but very few can or have played like Orr.
Every single Dman in every single League in the world STILL plays like Harvey!!!

This one point makes Harvey exempt from everything else? If that's how you want to judge them then fine. At least I'll know where you're coming from. I'm trying to rank players based on who would be the best if they were all on the same playing field with similar advantages.

 

[danincanada]

It WAS more common. Jean Beliveau ring a bell?
Many players were very content to play in these Leagues that were just a hair under the NHL for talent and level of play in many cases. Its not like it was about money, they all made peanuts and all worked second jobs.
Unlike the SEL in the late 80's/90's which was a 3rd tier League behind both the AHL and the Russian League.

I'm not quite sure about Lidstrom's case but there are quite a few cases where Swede's simply preferred to play, and live, in Sweden. Hakan Loob went back in his prime after winning the Cup in Calgary and never returned to the NHL.

In Lidstrom's case it was probably the Red Wings decision to wait to bring him over because that's how they do things. They usually want to see a player prove he can play at the WC's and in Lidstrom's case that also included the Canada Cup. Lidstrom actually contemplated returning to play in Sweden a couple times so he almost followed what Loob did.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Certainly there are types of players in the past that actually can't compete in today's NHL. On the other hand, nowadays there are players who would not make it from juniors back then, just because they would be simply killed.

Or, because the lower amount of teams meant a lot less roster spots league-wide.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It WAS more common. Jean Beliveau ring a bell?
Many players were very content to play in these Leagues that were just a hair under the NHL for talent and level of play in many cases. Its not like it was about money, they all made peanuts and all worked second jobs.
Unlike the SEL in the late 80's/90's which was a 3rd tier League behind both the AHL and the Russian League.

It might not seem a big difference, but Harvey started in the late 40s when the league was still recovering from the War, while Beliveau started in the early-mid 50s. Might not seem like a big difference, but maybe it was.

Either way, I can't believe anyone would seriously knock a early 90s European for not coming over as a teenager.

 

[Killion]

Exactly. That's what I always wondered about Orr, too. Injuries didn't allow him to mature into the defenseman he could be.

Ya. And so when people talk about Orr so reverentially, likes he's a God or something, its often jaded and subjective as he's a tragic figure (compounded further by Eaglesons duplicity). Coming into his own, had done so but still had plenty of mountain to climb. A career cut short.

Harvey played hockey throughout the war. In the Montreal National Defence hockey league, the Junior Amateur Hockey Association, and a few others. And the point is that even after the war, he still spent two seasons in senior hockey. This fact is being downplayed because it is claimed that this would have been more common back in the day. But that does not appear to be true. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated yet.

It WAS more common. Jean Beliveau ring a bell?
Many players were very content to play in these Leagues that were just a hair under the NHL for talent and level of play in many cases. Its not like it was about money, they all made peanuts and all worked second jobs.
Unlike the SEL in the late 80's/90's which was a 3rd tier League behind both the AHL and the Russian League.

Yes it was quite common actually. Beliveau in fact making a very good living in Quebec & refused to leave for Montreal, the Habs then buying the entire league, forcing his hand. But there were others in the WHL etc, guys who wouldnt sign with an NHL Club because the money was either less than or not much better than what they were making (and in fact some making more than NHL Stars), and they had no control over where they'd wind up playing. The NHL just didnt pay all that well period. Some who played Senior also employed in the community as Firemen, Milkmen, whatever. Controlled their own destiny & not interested thankyouverymuch. Doug Harvey had options as a multi~sport athlete and was an outlier to begin with. Not the best example of the more mainstream meat & potato talent NHL in~bound. A lot of the players through the 40's & into the early 50's, very circuitous routes to the NHL, many turning away from the road that led to the NHL altogether.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It might not seem a big difference, but Harvey started in the late 40s when the league was still recovering from the War, while Beliveau started in the early-mid 50s. Might not seem like a big difference, but maybe it was.

Either way, I can't believe anyone would seriously knock a early 90s European for not coming over as a teenager.

I'm not knocking him for not coming over as a teenager, I'm knocking him for first off, not even being drafted in his first year of eligibility and then for not coming over until year 4.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It WAS more common. Jean Beliveau ring a bell?
Many players were very content to play in these Leagues that were just a hair under the NHL for talent and level of play in many cases. Its not like it was about money, they all made peanuts and all worked second jobs.
Unlike the SEL in the late 80's/90's which was a 3rd tier League behind both the AHL and the Russian League.

Man this is too easy here, so Harvey's NHL had other leagues with talent just a hair under the NHL and Lidstrom played in an NHL with basically all the talent in the world not just Canadian talent?

thanks again for making my argument here as to the OP.

BTW Harvey probably would be a Doughty like player today, no idea exactly how he would translate as not all stars would IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Man this is too easy here, so Harvey's NHL had other leagues with talent just a hair under the NHL and Lidstrom played in an NHL with basically all the talent in the world not just Canadian talent?

thanks again for making my argument here as to the OP.

BTW Harvey probably would be a Doughty like player today, no idea exactly how he would translate as not all stars would IMO.

Oh boy, now I remember why I usually avoid this topic. Anyway, carry on.

 

[danincanada]

I'm not knocking him for not coming over as a teenager, I'm knocking him for first off, not even being drafted in his first year of eligibility and then for not coming over until year 4.

I'm pretty sure Datsyuk was passed over in the draft twice. Then he was taken in the 6th round and didn't come over until he was 23. Bowman had a veteran team full of HOFers in '02, and Dats couldn't speak english, but Scotty couldn't resist having this guy on the team going into the season. Bowman didn't care how he got there and neither should we.

The other similarity Datsyuk has with Lidstrom is how much NHL teams kicked themselves afterwards for not picking them in the draft at 18. Once again, you are being overly critical of Lidstrom - par for the course.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm pretty sure Datsyuk was passed over in the draft twice. Then he was taken in the 6th round and didn't come over until he was 23. Bowman had a veteran team full of HOFers in '02, and Dats couldn't speak english, but Scotty couldn't resist having this guy on the team going into the season. Bowman didn't care how he got there and neither should we.

The other similarity Datsyuk has with Lidstrom is how much NHL teams kicked themselves afterwards for not picking them in the draft at 18. Once again, you are being overly critical of Lidstrom - par for the course.

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Dats was being argued as being one of the best forwards to ever play

 

[danincanada]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Dats was being argued as being one of the best forwards to ever play

If that's the standard then neither Harvey or Lidstrom could be argued as being one of the best D of all-time. It doesn't matter to me though and it only matters to you when it involves Lidstrom. Funny how that is, eh?

 

[Killion]

Man this is too easy here, so Harvey's NHL had other leagues with talent just a hair under the NHL and Lidstrom played in an NHL with basically all the talent in the world not just Canadian talent?

thanks again for making my argument here as to the OP.

BTW Harvey probably would be a Doughty like player today, no idea exactly how he would translate as not all stars would IMO.

Oh boy, now I remember why I usually avoid this topic. Anyway, carry on.

.... gee, thanks TDMM, no probs.... and as for you Hv, your kidding, about that Harvey~Doughty comparison, right? The only commonality is that in both cases they took time to mature as Defenceman always do. Drew Doughty still a work in progress & ya, Im likin that player a lot, but he's not on the same par, same level as Doug Harvey was but you know what? Your entitled to your opinion ('s). Not gunna go to town on you for it. I can see where your coming from. Agree to disagree.

And ya, during the 06 era their were teams in the AHL & WHL, the old IHL that really werent that much off a NY Rangers or Bruins squad. Some beyond even that. Competitive with a top 3 NHL team. Cleveland in particular, they had their own Farm System, sponsoring amateur & Jr etc in Canada, Scouts out beating the bushes. So successful in fact that when out of spite they were rejected by the NHL as a 7th franchise entry in the early 50's after deferring to an earlier invitation to join, they "Challenged" the NHL to a Stanley Cup Showdown. Cleveland Barons vs NHL SC Champs. Bring it on. Player salaries in the AHL etc on-par, in some cases better than the NHL. The NHL in fact very worried that the AHL & WHL were surpassing them as the premier league in North America, established in large NHL sized markets, very popular, and they (the NHL) werent about to sit still for that. Los Angeles & the aforementioned Cleveland pounding on the door late 50's, threats of anti-trust, rival leagues skimming talent & threatening the NHL's supremacy, TV & the desire to secure revenues with a Coast~Coast footprint, by 60/61 their talking Expansion. First phase completed 67/68. Gone any threat to NHL super supremacy until the WHA comes along, and those clubs records against NHL clubs quite excellent.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where Dats was being argued as being one of the best forwards to ever play

Well he isn't one of the best 5 forwards to ever play but he has been one of the best forwards in the NHL over a period of 10 years (with injured time holding him down a bit).