Give us your top ten players of all time

[quoipourquoi]

Yeah, because you were really pushing for Fedorov in that project, right? I’m still scratching my head on how you convinced all those Habs fans to vote Forsberg so high. What even puts him above Fedorov when looking at their playoff careers? It must have been a pure PPG argument, ignoring everything else. I remember the huge point was that Forsberg lead scoring in ‘02 despite not making the finals, forgetting that if he actually came up with more than just 1 shot, no points, and a -2 in the last two games of his playoff he may have had a chance to make the finals. He was a great player and had a very nice playoff career but it was a pretty common trend in his career put up big points early in a series but then do little in the last games before his team was eliminated.

Fedorov was my favorite player growing up but Lidstrom had a better playoff career than he and Forsberg. There’s too much there for either to overcome. Then again, when I asked what you were actually looking for or to define “playoff performer” no one answered. That’s what made it such a special project.

The second part of your post is really not worthy of a response. It’s just cringe worthy and shows how far off base you are when it comes to talking about the actual impact Lidstrom had. Luckily, I’m not the only one who notices these things here.

I’m sorry that you were not as convinced on the Opponent-GA Adjusted Playoff Scoring metric (single playoff, best-5, career) as others were. Part of these projects is discovery, which is why we continuously updated both that chart and the overtime scoring chart throughout the project. If you come in inflexible, you may have a bad time. I was sold heavily on Doug Harvey and Larry Robinson - less so on Jacques Plante and Nicklas Lidstrom and Bryan Trottier. Ultimately, I think you get out what you put in.

But that project was over a year ago, so I’m not sure why you’re bringing it up, as I’m not exactly advocating for Peter Forsberg or Chris Pronger as a top-10 players (maybe 35-40 range and 45-60 range). It just seems like you’re here to air grievances. I don’t know if you CTRL+F for “Doug Harvey” but I’d recommend staying on topic going forward.

If you think Nicklas Lidstrom is a top-10 player, cool. But if you continue to disrupt threads with off-topic posts, you’ll like my response as a moderator less than my responses as an active participant in discussion threads and projects.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Then display it with a link. The whole discussion is here in this section. And why didn’t you answer me at the time then? It was an honest question I asked at the time because the whole thing was a head scratcher and the voting often made it seem impossible that you guys were looking at overall playoff careers like you would for the other projects with full careers.

From the sticky section a few lines above:

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers

Links to all the Discussion Threads at the bottom of the seminal post. Enjoy.

 

[danincanada]

From the sticky section a few lines above:

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers

Links to all the Discussion Threads at the bottom of the seminal post. Enjoy.

I already knew THAT. So you don't have a definition?

It's easy to assume it was the same as all the other projects where it's a balancing act between sheer greatness and career value but if that's the case then the list doesn't make sense so at the time I was wondering if it was supposed to be something different. I guess it just didn't make sense no matter what one defined it as.

 

[danincanada]

the percentage of your countrymen who practice lockpicking is also relevant.

There are a lot more buildings and therefore a lot more locks now than in the past.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No more off-topic posts.

 

[tmmr]

Ummm..................hmmmm.........I am trying to figure out how to word this. I love Hull, love him. But are you sure that he would be your first forward you would pick to dominate a game offensively?

Yes, absolutely! No knock on Gretzky, maybe the smartest and most intuitive player of all time, but Gretzky had a great supporting cast in Edmonton. In Hull's Chicago years he never had linemates who could complement him (Esposito was not the player in Chicago that he would become in Boston). It wasn't until Hull was in his 30's in the WHA that he had linemates (Anders Hedberg, Ulf Nilsson) who could wheel and deal and skate with him. And, for most of Hull's NHL years he had a shadow assigned to him each and every game, whose only job was to stick to Hull like glue and stop him from scoring, legally or illegally. No player before or since has warranted that kind of shadowing. (In the old days, if someone tried to shadow Howe like that, the guy would literally have left the ice on a stretcher. If Hull had been as mean as Howe he might have scored 100 goals a year).

So in terms of sheer offensive danger, and the ability to do it single-handedly if need be, I would put Hull on top. Everyone knows of his legendary speed and slap shot, but it's not as well known that Hull was probably the first player with a super-fast quick release on his wrist shot and one-timer, every bit as amazing as what we would see later from his son Brett.

 

[The Panther]

In Hull's Chicago years he never had linemates who could complement him...

You may be overlooking a linemate of Hull's who won 4 scoring titles in 5 years...

 

[pappyline]

You may be overlooking a linemate of Hull's who won 4 scoring titles in 5 years...

This has been explained many times Hull and Mikita played on different lines and Hull had the weaker linemates.

RW who played with Hull were mainly Murray Balfour and Chico Maki. Centres were the likes of Bill Hay, Espo, Danny O'shea, Lou Angotti. It should also be noted that Hull won his first AR in 1960 playing with 2 rookies-Murray Balfour and Bill Hay.

 

[Big Phil]

Prove it. I’ve watched Harvey and I didn’t see it. His adjusted offensive numbers and his place among his teams scoring leaders are lower than Lidstrom’s so was he superior defensively? Don’t see it. Lidstrom also had greater longevity and even had an additional all-star nomination despite playing in a far bigger and far deeper league with elite international players. I’m still waiting for an argument that makes me doubt mine. Been waiting for years actually.

Lidstrom had more of a Ron Francis-like career as a defenseman. Yes, he was a better defenseman than Francis as a centre, but hear me out. I mean this because he was good for a long, long time. But there are others that had stronger peaks, had a higher ceiling and where they may fall short against Lidstrom is that they weren't doing it after 35. That's impressive for Lidstrom, and he has that going for him. But so does Harvey, and then some. Harvey is very much like Bourque, and I saw Bourque's whole career, he was better than Lidstrom in almost every which way.

Here is a good test. Take Lidstrom out of his era and put him in other eras. How does he do? Some of them pretty good. In the 1960s he takes away Norrises from Pierre Pilote and actually Pilote possibly never wins one at all. In the 1970s you can make a pretty convincing argument that he never wins a single Norris and I can't find a year where he would have either. In the 1980s he does better than the 1970s, but you've got a lot of heavy seasons there too. Bourque and Coffey both had some big years that I'm not sure Lidstrom would ever pass. Then the early to mid 1990s, he is definitely not winning several in a row here, probably not even two. It isn't until the late 1990s that things slowed down. This is where Blake, Pronger, Niedermayer and to a lesser extent the likes of Gonchar were getting votes. Gone were Bourque, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens and for the most part Chelios. Coffey too. Lidstrom has as many Norrises because if you take it in context he had an easier era to stand out.

When you have to compare the true all-time greats you have to nitpick at things and this is one of those things. His competition wasn't as good as others before him. In fact, right now the NHL has pretty good competition at defense. Doughty, Hedman and Karlsson are probably your three best rearguards. After that Burns, Subban, Weber, Carlsson, Letang, etc. follow. Not a bad group, and a stronger group than Lidstrom dealt with.

 

[danincanada]

Lidstrom had more of a Ron Francis-like career as a defenseman. Yes, he was a better defenseman than Francis as a centre, but hear me out. I mean this because he was good for a long, long time. But there are others that had stronger peaks, had a higher ceiling and where they may fall short against Lidstrom is that they weren't doing it after 35. That's impressive for Lidstrom, and he has that going for him. But so does Harvey, and then some. Harvey is very much like Bourque, and I saw Bourque's whole career, he was better than Lidstrom in almost every which way.

Here is a good test. Take Lidstrom out of his era and put him in other eras. How does he do? Some of them pretty good. In the 1960s he takes away Norrises from Pierre Pilote and actually Pilote possibly never wins one at all. In the 1970s you can make a pretty convincing argument that he never wins a single Norris and I can't find a year where he would have either. In the 1980s he does better than the 1970s, but you've got a lot of heavy seasons there too. Bourque and Coffey both had some big years that I'm not sure Lidstrom would ever pass. Then the early to mid 1990s, he is definitely not winning several in a row here, probably not even two. It isn't until the late 1990s that things slowed down. This is where Blake, Pronger, Niedermayer and to a lesser extent the likes of Gonchar were getting votes. Gone were Bourque, MacInnis, Leetch, Stevens and for the most part Chelios. Coffey too. Lidstrom has as many Norrises because if you take it in context he had an easier era to stand out.

When you have to compare the true all-time greats you have to nitpick at things and this is one of those things. His competition wasn't as good as others before him. In fact, right now the NHL has pretty good competition at defense. Doughty, Hedman and Karlsson are probably your three best rearguards. After that Burns, Subban, Weber, Carlsson, Letang, etc. follow. Not a bad group, and a stronger group than Lidstrom dealt with.

I heard you out and it’s hard to believe you are actually serious. Ron Francis, who was a great player, was never an all-star while Lidstrom was 13 times! He didn’t have the playoff career Lidstrom had either. You lost me right there. It’s clear right away you are severely severely underrating Lidstrom. It really comes down to pretending a whole generation of defenseman was weak in order to bring down the top guy even though he played in the biggest version of the NHL with the most diverse elite talent seen to that point. If elite defenseman were so scarce during his prime then doesn’t that still make his super valuable on the peer to peer level? Peer to peer comparisons is always how you compare, until it comes to Lidstrom.

Save me the dogmatic thought and give me some real reasoning and evidence for your points. It’s clear to me that it is just dogma and that’s why it has more holes than a pound of Swiss cheese.

Harvey did not produce the offensive numbers Lidstrom did. Not the the raw points, adjusted points, and had generally lower team finishes. He was no where near the goal scorer Lidstrom was as he deferred to Geoffrion as the shooter on the PP. Lidstrom was usually the shooter for his team and he could one-time the puck with the best of them. “Better in almost every which way”, heh. I think Lidstrom was better defensively than offensively and was on the godly level so go ahead and pretend Harvey was superior there if you’d like. Not buying it, he had Plante the yearly AS behind him while Lidstrom had guys like Vernon, Osgood, an older Hasek, and Howard.

Your test is backed up by nothing. Am I supposed to assume Harvey would win all the Norris’ against everyone except Orr? Would 50 points in 70 games cut it because I’m thinking that’s the reason why you don’t think Lidstrom could do it in the higher scoring eras. What was wrong with Lidstrom’s ceiling anyway? During his peak wasn’t he usually considered both the best defenseman offensively and defensively and a great big game performer as well (playoffs)? I fail to see the difference between the two. Please actually show me.

Did Lidstrom have to wait for his seniors to slow down or did he also have to hit his prime because that’s a pretty big coincidence. Both Lidstrom and Harvey got their first AS nominations at 27 so maybe Harvey had to wait his turn too but I don’t see claims of the guys before him being superior. Funny, eh? Or maybe he needed Stewart, Quackenbush, and Reardon to get older and slow down before he could make his mark.

Do you think it’s really logical to believe Harvey’s competition was better than Lidstrom’s? I mean, one literally only faced Canadians for accolades while the other faced international elite talent. This is where we pretend the Canadian players in the O6 were all cyborgs like the kids these days talk about current players. Was Red Kelly, his main early competition, a defenseman or a forward? He could play both but doesn’t anyone else find it strange that he played forward later in his career when D usually mature later? Maybe he was great offensively but nothing to write home about defensively? And I’m guessing Gadsby, Pronovost, and Flanman were superior to all of Lidstrom’s peers - but only the guys who came immediately after what people believe to be the most top heavy era of defenseman of all-time? Funny how that works, too, eh?

And much of the more recent era, that you think is so strong in comparison, couldnt even wrestle the Norris votes from a 41 year old Lidstrom, which is even worse than how Lidstrom had to wait his turn.

Something is majorly off about this whole argument of yours.

 

[Thenameless]

Am I supposed to assume Harvey would win all the Norris’ against everyone except Orr?

You don't have to assume it. The fewer and fewer oldtimers that have had the chance to watch Harvey, Orr, and subsequent defensemen will often have a similar opinion. Doug Harvey doesn't get the glory of Rocket, Beliveau, and even Boom Boom, but many among those who watched hockey in that era say that he was just as important if not more than the aforementioned to those dynasty teams.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I heard you out and it’s hard to believe you are actually serious. Ron Francis, who was a great player, was never an all-star while Lidstrom was 13 times! He didn’t have the playoff career Lidstrom had either. You lost me right there. It’s clear right away you are severely severely underrating Lidstrom. It really comes down to pretending a whole generation of defenseman was weak in order to bring down the top guy even though he played in the biggest version of the NHL with the most diverse elite talent seen to that point. If elite defenseman were so scarce during his prime then doesn’t that still make his super valuable on the peer to peer level? Peer to peer comparisons is always how you compare, until it comes to Lidstrom.

Save me the dogmatic thought and give me some real reasoning and evidence for your points. It’s clear to me that it is just dogma and that’s why it has more holes than a pound of Swiss cheese.

Harvey did not produce the offensive numbers Lidstrom did. Not the the raw points, adjusted points, and had generally lower team finishes. He was no where near the goal scorer Lidstrom was as he deferred to Geoffrion as the shooter on the PP. Lidstrom was usually the shooter for his team and he could one-time the puck with the best of them. “Better in almost every which way”, heh. I think Lidstrom was better defensively than offensively and was on the godly level so go ahead and pretend Harvey was superior there if you’d like. Not buying it, he had Plante the yearly AS behind him while Lidstrom had guys like Vernon, Osgood, an older Hasek, and Howard.

Your test is backed up by nothing. Am I supposed to assume Harvey would win all the Norris’ against everyone except Orr? Would 50 points in 70 games cut it because I’m thinking that’s the reason why you don’t think Lidstrom could do it in the higher scoring eras. What was wrong with Lidstrom’s ceiling anyway? During his peak wasn’t he usually considered both the best defenseman offensively and defensively and a great big game performer as well (playoffs)? I fail to see the difference between the two. Please actually show me.

Did Lidstrom have to wait for his seniors to slow down or did he also have to hit his prime because that’s a pretty big coincidence. Both Lidstrom and Harvey got their first AS nominations at 27 so maybe Harvey had to wait his turn too but I don’t see claims of the guys before him being superior. Funny, eh? Or maybe he needed Stewart, Quackenbush, and Reardon to get older and slow down before he could make his mark.

Do you think it’s really logical to believe Harvey’s competition was better than Lidstrom’s? I mean, one literally only faced Canadians for accolades while the other faced international elite talent. This is where we pretend the Canadian players in the O6 were all cyborgs like the kids these days talk about current players. Was Red Kelly, his main early competition, a defenseman or a forward? He could play both but doesn’t anyone else find it strange that he played forward later in his career when D usually mature later? Maybe he was great offensively but nothing to write home about defensively? And I’m guessing Gadsby, Pronovost, and Flanman were superior to all of Lidstrom’s peers - but only the guys who came immediately after what people believe to be the most top heavy era of defenseman of all-time? Funny how that works, too, eh?

And much of the more recent era, that you think is so strong in comparison, couldnt even wrestle the Norris votes from a 41 year old Lidstrom, which is even worse than how Lidstrom had to wait his turn.

Something is majorly off about this whole argument of yours.

Major problem with your views is that a 43 year old Doug Harvey more than held his own against a 20 year old Bobby Orr, 1968-69 season starting October 24, 1968.

Also, huge misunderstanding about the 1950s PP and how they were run,especially the Canadiens.

Ron Francis. Like Lidstrom a Byng quality player at a non-Byng position.

Conversely center to defencemen comparables are fails due to the TOI differentials.

 

[danincanada]

You don't have to assume it. The fewer and fewer oldtimers that have had the chance to watch Harvey, Orr, and subsequent defensemen will often have a similar opinion. Doug Harvey doesn't get the glory of Rocket, Beliveau, and even Boom Boom, but many among those who watched hockey in that era say that he was just as important if not more than the aforementioned to those dynasty teams.

That's fine and the same can be said about Potvin and Lidstrom because those rocks on the back end are invaluable. That doesn't permanently place him number 2 after Orr forever though. I was told by Phil that we need to nitpick Lidstrom but where is this for Harvey? Even when he went to a much weaker Rangers team and helped them a lot he only finished 6th in team scoring. This type of thing has been held against Lidstrom around here constantly. It was a different era but it still displays that maybe Harvey wasn't the offensive catalyst that some try to sell him as. I just wish those critics would pipe up when it comes to Harvey but they are no shows constantly.

 

[danincanada]

Major problem with your views is that a 43 year old Doug Harvey more than held his own against a 20 year old Bobby Orr, 1968-69 season starting October 24, 1968.

I'm not really interested in comparing a 43 year old Harvey with a 20 year old Orr but "more than held his own"?

Orr had 31 points in 46 games, +28 with a Norris and 1st AS nomination

Harvey had 22 points in 70 games, +11 with no apparent Norris or AS recognition.

You're being just a little generous here and I fail to see where the major problem is with my views.

Also, huge misunderstanding about the 1950s PP and how they were run,especially the Canadiens.

Was Geoffrion not usually the shooter from the blue line on the PP? From footage and games I've seen that was generally the case. If not, why such low goal totals for Harvey?

Ron Francis. Like Lidstrom a Byng quality player at a non-Byng position.

What are you trying to imply here? Lidstrom should have a basement full of Byng's, not that it would make anyone value him anymore. The real take away from that is that he was elite defensively, being dispatched to face the other teams best in a shutdown role, playing nearly half the game, and hardly took any penalties doing it. It's an intangible that can't be measured as an added value to his teams.

Conversely center to defencemen comparables are fails due to the TOI differentials.

Take that up with Phil, it was his poor comparison, not mine.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I'm not really interested in comparing a 43 year old Harvey with a 20 year old Orr but "more than held his own"?

Orr had 31 points in 46 games, +28 with a Norris and 1st AS nomination

Harvey had 22 points in 70 games, +11 with no apparent Norris or AS recognition.

You're being just a little generous here and I fail to see where the major problem is with my views.



Was Geoffrion not usually the shooter from the blue line on the PP? From footage and games I've seen that was generally the case. If not, why such low goal totals for Harvey?



What are you trying to imply here? Lidstrom should have a basement full of Byng's, not that it would make anyone value him anymore. The real take away from that is that he was elite defensively, being dispatched to face the other teams best in a shutdown role, playing nearly half the game, and hardly took any penalties doing it. It's an intangible that can't be measured as an added value to his teams.



Take that up with Phil, it was his poor comparison, not mine.

St.Louis and the Bruins faced each other six times, splitting 2-2-2:

St. Louis Blues - Boston Bruins - October 24th, 1968

You can finish the research.

Canadiens PP with Doug Harvey. Check the number of games that Doug Harvey played and the number of games Geoffrion played. Hard to run the PP from the stands.

From 1955 thru 1961 the Canadiens led the NHL for PP goals for seven straight season, total margin of 74 PPG. This is all that matters, not the individual component PP scoring.

Canadiens ran a wide PP centered on puck movement, getting the puck into the prime scoring area(slot). Harvey was the key element since he could exploit the man advantage inside the blueline or anywhere on the ice. Geoffrion could not.

NHL PP changed to a point shooter centric in the sixties.

 

[danincanada]

As an aside and just an interesting piece of information. Doug Harvey didn't score his first playoff goal until he was 31 and his 8th playoff appearance. That's wild stuff.

 

[danincanada]

St.Louis and the Bruins faced each other six times, splitting 2-2-2:

St. Louis Blues - Boston Bruins - October 24th, 1968

You can finish the research.

Canadiens PP with Doug Harvey. Check the number of games that Doug Harvey played and the number of games Geoffrion played. Hard to run the PP from the stands.

From 1955 thru 1961 the Canadiens led the NHL for PP goals for seven straight season, total margin of 74 PPG. This is all that matters, not the individual component PP scoring.

Canadiens ran a wide PP centered on puck movement, getting the puck into the prime scoring area(slot). Harvey was the key element since he could exploit the man advantage inside the blueline or anywhere on the ice. Geoffrion could not.

NHL PP changed to a point shooter centric in the sixties.

That's a huge sample size you're using for the Orr/Harvey comparison but I'd prefer to look at the whole season. Focusing on one October regular season game is silly.

I didn't claim Geoffrion ran the PP, just that he was the shooter from the point. Lidstrom could shoot bombs like Geoffrion and help his team score other ways, and run the PP too, and those Red Wings teams weren't too shabby with the man advantage either. Lidstrom has been criticized several times in this section for relying on the PP too much. Hmmm.....

Now you're going to pretend it was all about Harvey and Lidstrom but the Habs were simply more stacked for their era than even Lidstrom's Red Wings. They had the 3 leading scorers in the league one season. With only 6 teams, that was far more possible but it points to how stacked their forwards were and they had the preeminent goaltender to boot.

I'm not saying Lidstrom was better just because he was a superior shooter and goal scorer but I was told up thread that Harvey was better at everything. Clearly not.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not every thread needs to be derailed by Doug Harvey vs. Nicklas Lidstrom. Having one in the top-10 does not preclude having the other. But...

Is there a case for Nicklas Lidstrom over Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Bobby Hull, or Sidney Crosby?

Is there a case for Nicklas Lidstrom over every player from the first half-century of hockey history?

Is there a case for Nicklas Lidstrom over every goaltender that has ever played?

That’s 10. So unless someone wants to justify Lidstrom over the above, this overplayed Harvey vs. Lidstrom conversation is too far removed from the purpose of the thread.

 

[danincanada]

Not every thread needs to be derailed by Doug Harvey vs. Nicklas Lidstrom. Having one in the top-10 does not preclude having the other. But...

Is there a case for Nicklas Lidstrom over Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe, Bobby Orr, Mario Lemieux, Jean Beliveau, Maurice Richard, Bobby Hull, or Sidney Crosby?

Is there a case for Nicklas Lidstrom over every player from the first half-century of hockey history?

Is there a case for Nicklas Lidstrom over every goaltender that has ever played?

That’s 10. So unless someone wants to justify Lidstrom over the above, this overplayed Harvey vs. Lidstrom conversation is too far removed from the purpose of the thread.

And didn't you originally have Harvey in your top 10 here? If Lidstrom is so far from the top 10 then feel free to show me why he is but Harvey belongs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

That's a huge sample size you're using for the Orr/Harvey comparison but I'd prefer to look at the whole season. Focusing on one October regular season game is silly.

I didn't claim Geoffrion ran the PP, just that he was the shooter from the point. Lidstrom could shoot bombs like Geoffrion and help his team score other ways, and run the PP too, and those Red Wings teams weren't too shabby with the man advantage either. Lidstrom has been criticized several times in this section for relying on the PP too much. Hmmm.....

Now you're going to pretend it was all about Harvey and Lidstrom but the Habs were simply more stacked for their era than even Lidstrom's Red Wings. They had the 3 leading scorers in the league one season. With only 6 teams, that was far more possible but it points to how stacked their forwards were and they had the preeminent goaltender to boot.

I'm not saying Lidstrom was better just because he was a superior shooter and goal scorer but I was told up thread that Harvey was better at everything. Clearly not.

2-2-2 is not one game. Only available Harvey/Orr confrontations. Since it is clear you do no research, just snipe you can check the rest.

Amongst the recognized PP QB defencemen Lidstrom is the only one who scored the majority of his points on the PP.Harvey, Pilote, Orr, Park, Potvin, Bourque, Housley, Coffey all scored a solid Majority of their points at ES. interesting that in his short career,Orr scored 608 ES points while Lidstrom in his long career scored 552 ES points.

 

[danincanada]

2-2-2 is not one game. Only available Harvey/Orr confrontations. Since it is clear you do no research, just snipe you can check the rest.

Amongst the recognized PP QB defencemen Lidstrom is the only one who scored the majority of his points on the PP.Harvey, Pilote, Orr, Park, Potvin, Bourque, Housley, Coffey all scored a solid Majority of their points at ES. interesting that in his short career,Orr scored 608 ES points while Lidstrom in his long career scored 552 ES points.

In your research did you confirm that both players played in all 6 games? I mean, it was a 76 game season and Harvey missed 6 while Orr missed 30 so I'd be surprised if that was the case. Do you really think it's worth it to compare two defensemen head to head like that over 6 random games? I don't, which is why I didn't look any further.

I remember going back and forth with Rheissen71 a few years back when we realized Harvey was also extremely reliant on the PP for his points. After all his criticism of Lidstrom over the years for it he turned around and said, "wow, Harvey was really great on the powerplay". They are different eras with different spreads and a PP point is not worth any less than ES.

 

[Canadiens1958]

In your research did you confirm that both players played in all 6 games? I mean, it was a 76 game season and Harvey missed 6 while Orr missed 30 so I'd be surprised if that was the case. Do you really think it's worth it to compare two defensemen head to head like that over 6 random games? I don't, which is why I didn't look any further.

I remember going back and forth with Rheissen71 a few years back when we realized Harvey was also extremely reliant on the PP for his points. After all his criticism of Lidstrom over the years for it he turned around and said, "wow, Harvey was really great on the powerplay". They are different eras with different spreads and a PP point is not worth any less than ES.

Then your question does not matter.

We are discussing Top 10 All Time Players and one of the umbrella issues across eras is the players' ability to play at ES.

Howe playing across multiple eras was at 1250 ES points to 540 PP. The under discussion players are in the 1. 10 to 2.75 ESP range. Harvey scored 293 ES points out of 540. Sidney Crosby is roughly 7 ES per 11 PTS. All have strong ES levels except Lidstrom.

Likewise, goalies are considered using ES and PP data.

 

[danincanada]

Then your question does not matter.

We are discussing Top 10 All Time Players and one of the umbrella issues across eras is the players' ability to play at ES.

Howe playing across multiple eras was at 1250 ES points to 540 PP. The under discussion players are in the 1. 10 to 2.75 ESP range. Harvey scored 293 ES points out of 540. Sidney Crosby is roughly 7 ES per 11 PTS. All have strong ES levels except Lidstrom.

Likewise, goalies are considered using ES and PP data.

You're going to spin being lethal on the PP as not having the "ability to play at ES"? Lidstrom was a +511 over his career, including playoffs so he was dominant at ES, too. He and his team just happened to make teams pay on the PP. Again, a PP goal isn't worth any less than ES.

The DPE made the PP crucial because it was so difficult to score since everyone was trying to trap and play strong defensive systems so if you're going to ignore that and differences in eras then we can see that Lidstrom's offensive numbers are far greater than Harvey any way you slice it.

Lidstrom 512 ES points, 590 PP points, 40 SH, and 1,142 total points during his regular season career.

Harvey 293 ES points, ? PP points, ? SH points, and 540 total points during his regular season career.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You're going to spin being lethal on the PP as not having the "ability to play at ES"? Lidstrom was a +511 over his career, including playoffs so he was dominant at ES, too. He and his team just happened to make teams pay on the PP. Again, a PP goal isn't worth any less than ES.

The DPE made the PP crucial because it was so difficult to score since everyone was trying to trap and play strong defensive systems so if you're going to ignore that and differences in eras then we can see that Lidstrom's offensive numbers are far greater than Harvey any way you slice it.

Lidstrom 512 ES points, 590 PP points, 40 SH, and 1,142 total points during his regular season career.

Harvey 293 ES points, ? PP points, ? SH points, and 540 total points during his regular season career.

Many players played thru the DPE with stronger ES numbers than PP numbers. Jagr has almost a 2:1 ratio, with greater PP contribution than Lidstrom but was a train wreck defensively. Joe Sakic and others generated more on the PP than Lidstrom while being much stronger at ES.

 

[danincanada]

Many players played thru the DPE with stronger ES numbers than PP numbers. Jagr has almost a 2:1 ratio, with greater PP contribution than Lidstrom but was a train wreck defensively. Joe Sakic and others generated more on the PP than Lidstrom while being much stronger at ES.

Offence-first forwards versus a defense-first defenseman who was constantly tasked to shut down the oppositions top lines at ES. You're a "team first, winning means all, I love defense" guy. Are you really making this argument? I'm sure the top forwards of Harvey outpaced him greatly at ES too, but you'd like to ignore that part.

I think it's time for me to move on now. You're just throwing darts at a board constantly hoping something will stick. Lidstrom and Harvey were extremely similar in so many ways. I can appreciate both, but I feel one had greater feats. That's why I feel if one belongs in the top 10 all-time, it's Lidstrom. Maybe both should be there but then there's Bourque, too, so having 4 D seems like too much.