Give us your top ten players of all time

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
That's not the point, Harvey wasn't small for that era and his size would be fine in any era. He simply wasn't stocky, which was Phil's claim. Currently I am exactly the same size as he was and no one would ever call me stocky. Bourque was stocky, Harvey and Lidstrom weren't.

Both you and Phil are drifting into fantasy.

Harvey played in the long shift era. He was also a multi-sport athlete FB, BB, boxing, soccer, track and field.His body was built for endurance.

Mid forties hockey saw the introduction of the center red line and the resulting offside rule change.

Harvey was one of the few defencemen who was capable of holding the inside of the offensive blue line. Others played midway to center and supported. Rarely pinched and did not fill the low scoring lanes into the slot/crease. Forwards roles.

During his career, hockey went from two - three lines, two d-man pairings. to three-four lines,two-three pairings.Rosters grew to allow scheduling growth from 50 to 76 games.

Bourque started at the tail end of the long shift era transitioning to the short shift game.Lidstrom was strictly a short shift era defenceman so they trained accordingly producing appropriate physiques. Standard four line three pairings hockey. Both were required to pinch and fill scoring lanes so their numbers reflect this.

Harvey was the best skater of the three. Played center until his last high school season.Bourque was not top five amongst defencemen. Lidstrom was high average.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Both you and Phil are drifting into fantasy.

Harvey played in the long shift era. He was also a multi-sport athlete FB, BB, boxing, soccer, track and field.His body was built for endurance.

Mid forties hockey saw the introduction of the center red line and the resulting offside rule change.

Harvey was one of the few defencemen who was capable of holding the inside of the offensive blue line. Others played midway to center and supported. Rarely pinched and did not fill the low scoring lanes into the slot/crease. Forwards roles.

During his career, hockey went from two - three lines, two d-man pairings. to three-four lines,two-three pairings.Rosters grew to allow scheduling growth from 50 to 76 games.

Bourque started at the tail end of the long shift era transitioning to the short shift game.Lidstrom was strictly a short shift era defenceman so they trained accordingly producing appropriate physiques. Standard four line three pairings hockey. Both were required to pinch and fill scoring lanes so their numbers reflect this.

Harvey was the best skater of the three. Played center until his last high school season.Bourque was not top five amongst defencemen. Lidstrom was high average.

Where am I drifting into fantasy? My dispute was that he wasn't stocky like Bourque, which you seem to agree with. I mean, if he was roughly the same height but 32 lbs. less than it's obviously true. Bourque was a really good all around skater in his prime but obviously not as smooth and fast as Coffey. One key point for him is that he seemed to be a gym rat before most pros were and that gave him a big advantage in terms of strength, conditioning, and endurance. All three guys could play in any era, whether it be long shift or short shift. Bourque played huge minutes most of his career and Lidstrom could as well even though he wasn't usually asked to because, as you brought up, it was a short shift game during his prime. Game 3 of the '02 finals Bowman had him play 52:03 in the triple OT game and that was during the high pace short shift era. I have no doubt all 3 could adapt to whatever they were asked to do. Was Harvey really the best skater? I think that's up for debate. Bourque had no issues jumping up in the play and still getting back to defend on the same shift and Lidstrom didn't look impressive because he had a longer stride but he was a strong enough skater to always be in the right spot. That's not happening if you can't move around the ice efficiently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Where am I drifting into fantasy? My dispute was that he wasn't stocky like Bourque, which you seem to agree with. I mean, if he was roughly the same height but 32 lbs. less than it's obviously true. Bourque was a really good all around skater in his prime but obviously not as smooth and fast as Coffey. One key point for him is that he seemed to be a gym rat before most pros were and that gave him a big advantage in terms of strength, conditioning, and endurance. All three guys could play in any era, whether it be long shift or short shift. Bourque played huge minutes most of his career and Lidstrom could as well even though he wasn't usually asked to because, as you brought up, it was a short shift game during his prime. Game 3 of the '02 finals Bowman had him play 52:03 in the triple OT game and that was during the high pace short shift era. I have no doubt all 3 could adapt to whatever they were asked to do. Was Harvey really the best skater? I think that's up for debate. Bourque had no issues jumping up in the play and still getting back to defend on the same shift and Lidstrom didn't look impressive because he had a longer stride but he was a strong enough skater to always be in the right spot. That's not happening if you can't move around the ice efficiently.

Fantasy in terms of imagining how the game was played, the physical requirements, the strategies. Plus your fantasy math.

Prime example being the bolded. Game 3 lasted 114:57. Lidstrom played 52:03 but this is trending below his regular season TOI of 28:49 that year.

Harvey also played in a 4 OT game and 2 games requiring 3 OT periods. All in a two pairing era, easily surpassing Lidstrom in TOI each time.

Harvey if required by circumstances played over 50 minutes in a RS game.

Harvey(even at age 35+, Savard,Orr)
could regularly execute tight spin moves).Bourque, Lidstrom could not. Today hardly any players can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Farkas

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Fantasy in terms of imagining how the game was played, the physical requirements, the strategies. Plus your fantasy math.

Prime example being the bolded. Game 3 lasted 114:57. Lidstrom played 52:03 but this is trending below his regular season TOI of 28:49 that year.

Harvey also played in a 4 OT game and 2 games requiring 3 OT periods. All in a two pairing era, easily surpassing Lidstrom in TOI each time.

Harvey if required by circumstances played over 50 minutes in a RS game.

Harvey(even at age 35+, Savard,Orr)
could regularly execute tight spin moves).Bourque, Lidstrom could not. Today hardly any players can.

Context has to be provided for ice-time comparisons across eras anyways. The pace of the modern era is far greater than before - EVERYONE knows this. I could play for hours if the pace is slow and I'm far from a pro. I'd tire quickly if I had to try to keep up with high level players though. My point was that Lidstrom played 52 minutes in the finals, where the pace was intense so it's not like he couldn't handle more minutes than his accustomed 25 to 30. Bourque was notorious for playing over half the game even without OT when the pace was high as well. Like I said, all three could adapt to any era in terms of ice-time and pace. I'm not sure what your issue is with that, or are you trying to imply that Bourque and Lidstrom couldn't play huge minutes at a slower pace?

What's the fantasy math I'm using?

Right, the spin move that you constantly bring up. I've seen AAA peewee players do that move just as tight, except they were moving instead of standing still like I've seen Harvey do. Mind you they clearly have better skates now but it's not the big deal you think it is. Players are better equipped to defend that in today's era so it's not worth trying in the NHL. I'm sure if someone tried it and got bodied off the puck or got the puck knocked off his stick you'd just say they didn't execute it tightly enough. Harvey didn't even master the slap shot or one-timer so what makes you think his skating ability as superior to today's NHLers? In both shooting and skating the equipment is so much better now so it's a strange claim to make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nick Hansen

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
I think that's the key. Harvey was standing still at the blue line, which would be a big problem in today's NHL because everyone is in motion. I think you're confusing him standing still and then spinning to get out of trouble with doing it tightly. When a player is already in motion and then spins of course it's not going to be as tight.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Context has to be provided for ice-time comparisons across eras anyways. The pace of the modern era is far greater than before - EVERYONE knows this. I could play for hours if the pace is slow and I'm far from a pro. I'd tire quickly if I had to try to keep up with high level players though. My point was that Lidstrom played 52 minutes in the finals, where the pace was intense so it's not like he couldn't handle more minutes than his accustomed 25 to 30. Bourque was notorious for playing over half the game even without OT when the pace was high as well. Like I said, all three could adapt to any era in terms of ice-time and pace. I'm not sure what your issue is with that, or are you trying to imply that Bourque and Lidstrom couldn't play huge minutes at a slower pace?

What's the fantasy math I'm using?

Right, the spin move that you constantly bring up. I've seen AAA peewee players do that move just as tight, except they were moving instead of standing still like I've seen Harvey do. Mind you they clearly have better skates now but it's not the big deal you think it is. Players are better equipped to defend that in today's era so it's not worth trying in the NHL. I'm sure if someone tried it and got bodied off the puck or got the puck knocked off his stick you'd just say they didn't execute it tightly enough. Harvey didn't even master the slap shot or one-timer so what makes you think his skating ability as superior to today's NHLers? In both shooting and skating the equipment is so much better now so it's a strange claim to make.

Pace and training in a 100 yard sprint is different as well when compared to a distance of a mile or a marathon. Regardless of the era. Point is the athlete has to actually do it. Harvey did. Bourque and Lidstrom did not under game situations.Hypotheticals do not count.

Standing still is the difficult version of the spin move. No momentum to leverage.Harvey did both. Likewise Orr, Savard.

Slapshot and one-timer, reflect skating ability? Explains why Bobby Hull - best skater amongst forwards in the NHL and Bernie Geoffrion, bottom third, had elite slapshots. Today, best skater, McDavid is far from the top in one-timers or slapshots.

Fantasy math = adjusting everything in a simple proportion. Then assuming the athlete will perform.

Slapshots and one-timers were a small part of a players offensive toolbox until recently.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I think that's the key. Harvey was standing still at the blue line, which would be a big problem in today's NHL because everyone is in motion. I think you're confusing him standing still and then spinning to get out of trouble with doing it tightly. When a player is already in motion and then spins of course it's not going to be as tight.

Funny. You only saw one Harvey spin move - against Toronto. Here is another at 1:22, in motion, tight quarters using half the area behind the defensive red line:

 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Funny. You only saw one Harvey spin move - against Toronto. Here is another at 1:22, in motion, tight quarters using half the area behind the defensive red line:



Come on, are you expecting me to not actually watch the video or what? It's not even a spin, he just does a tight turn at 1:22. I could literally do that, too - most hockey players can. Who cares, maybe he could spin wonderfully like no one before or since. I'm just going to move on from this because it's getting ridiculous.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Pace and training in a 100 yard sprint is different as well when compared to a distance of a mile or a marathon. Regardless of the era. Point is the athlete has to actually do it. Harvey did. Bourque and Lidstrom did not under game situations.Hypotheticals do not count.

Standing still is the difficult version of the spin move. No momentum to leverage.Harvey did both. Likewise Orr, Savard.

Slapshot and one-timer, reflect skating ability? Explains why Bobby Hull - best skater amongst forwards in the NHL and Bernie Geoffrion, bottom third, had elite slapshots. Today, best skater, McDavid is far from the top in one-timers or slapshots.

Fantasy math = adjusting everything in a simple proportion. Then assuming the athlete will perform.

Slapshots and one-timers were a small part of a players offensive toolbox until recently.

Harvey never played at today's pace either so can we assume he couldn't? I wouldn't assume that but feel free to if you wish. In reality, playing at a high pace is a lot harder because you need to make quicker decisions and making skill plays at high speeds is harder than doing it in slow motion. That's why as you go up each level of hockey it gets faster and quicker. Most games only go 60 minutes so that is usually the limit for how many minutes one can play. That's hardly a marathon, and players in the long shift era adjusted accordingly while modern players need to adjust to quicker pace with shorter shifts.

Do you have a better way to compare across eras with statistics? Adjusted stats aren't perfect but it's the best we have for comparing vastly different eras of the NHL because at least you're trying to adjust for the scoring environment of the league. Besides, I showed team finishes in scoring along side it just to display that Harvey wasn't the offensive catalyst of his team like some pretend. Whenever we've seen a defenseman take charge of his teams offense and do it well it leads to high point totals and high team finishes in points, whether it's Orr, Coffey, Bourque, or Karlsson. Harvey sits below Lidstrom in this regard and it's very clear using both metrics.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear about the shooting and skating example. I didn't mean that the slap shot and one-timer reflect skating ability, just that both have been greatly enhanced due to huge improvements in equipment. To pretend you can tell that Harvey can do things with those skates that no one today can do with today's skates doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I used the example of shooting because the two are linked in terms of equipment enhancements. I'm sure the sticks they used held back players from being able to take slap shots and one-timers like they can now. Harvey didn't overcome the lack of a more technologically advanced stick but he could spin like no one can today?
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Harvey never played at today's pace either so can we assume he couldn't? I wouldn't assume that but feel free to if you wish. In reality, playing at a high pace is a lot harder because you need to make quicker decisions and making skill plays at high speeds is harder than doing it in slow motion. That's why as you go up each level of hockey it gets faster and quicker. Most games only go 60 minutes so that is usually the limit for how many minutes one can play. That's hardly a marathon, and players in the long shift era adjusted accordingly while modern players need to adjust to quicker pace with shorter shifts.

Do you have a better way to compare across eras with statistics? Adjusted stats aren't perfect but it's the best we have for comparing vastly different eras of the NHL because at least you're trying to adjust for the scoring environment of the league. Besides, I showed team finishes in scoring along side it just to display that Harvey wasn't the offensive catalyst of his team like some pretend. Whenever we've seen a defenseman take charge of his teams offense and do it well it leads to high point totals and high team finishes in points, whether it's Orr, Coffey, Bourque, or Karlsson. Harvey sits below Lidstrom in this regard and it's very clear using both metrics.

Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear about the shooting and skating example. I didn't mean that the slap shot and one-timer reflect skating ability, just that both have been greatly enhanced due to huge improvements in equipment. To pretend you can tell that Harvey can do things with those skates that no one today can do with today's skates doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I used the example of shooting because the two are linked in terms of equipment enhancements. I'm sure the sticks they used held back players from being able to take slap shots and one-timers like they can now. Harvey didn't overcome the lack of a more technologically advanced stick but he could spin like no one can today?

Let's ask Oliver Eckman-Larsson who tested equipment from the 1980s, a generation past Harvey's prime:

https://www.bardown.com/oliver-ekma...hockey-equipment-in-hilarious-video-1.1096195

Seems that OEL was gassed a few times as well.

Understanding what pre 1980 skaters accomplished and ranking them properly requires an appropriate appreciation of the changes in the game.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I’m not following you here either. On H-R, Harvey is listed as 5-11, 187, while Bourque is 5-11, 219, and Lidstrom is 6-1, 192. Bourque always looked a little shorter than that to me and Lidstrom a little taller. Harvey is difficult to tell because of the different equipment but I never thought of him as stocky like Bourque. Nothing about him looks stocky and the scale didn’t seem to think so either. Bourque was kind of all over the ice, but obviously not to the extent of Orr, he took tons of shots, and often took charge of the offense for his team. That wasn’t Harvey so what about their styles were even similar? How is Lidstrom the odd man out in terms of style, other than physicality? Harvey’s shot totals were very low, and, again, he simply didn’t take part in nearly as much offense as Bourque.

Was it supposed to be easy for Lidstrom to finish ahead of Yzerman, Fedorov, and Shanahan in scoring, plus all the other HOF forwards who came and went over the years? As I’ve clearly shown he did have better scoring finishes on his team than Harvey. Quite a lot better actually. Harvey’s best was 4th during his second year with the Rangers. That team wasn’t stacked like the Habs, and it wasn’t his first year their either when he finished 6th, with him getting 30 points while Bathgate lead the team with 84. Maybe he just didn’t have as much of an offensive impact as people would like to believe. I still don’t know how Harvey stood out more on his team considering his offensive contributions were clearly less. It’s something you keep repeating with no rhyme or reason.

You’re the one who told me we have to nitpick the top guys. Where is that for Harvey? You just excuse everything about him and listen to what some other people have said - that’s far from nitpicking. It’s par for the course on this board though. There were seriously glowing things said about Lidstrom as well but that’s not taken as seriously. Bowman used the word “perfect” when asked about him as they celebrated the ‘02 Cup. Can I just run with that then and disregard all the usual metrics used? Bourque and Harvey weren’t perfect.

I still don’t know why you have Lidstrom third. Do you even know?

Yes it was easier to finish ahead of Yzerman, Fedorov and Shanahan in the scoring race. The first wasn't in his offensive prime anymore. Fedorov almost never performed up to standards in the regular season and Shanahan wasn't a guy who put up eye popping offensive numbers, but rather just very good numbers usually. It would be easier to stick out among them than a prime Beliveau, Geoffrion, Richard and Moore.

I just always have Harvey and Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. Bourque I saw his whole career so I can say without a doubt he had a better career than Lidstrom. Harvey was more central to his dynasty's success than Lidstrom. Come on, we're talking about a guy that half of the people on this board would think is the straw the stirred the drink on those dynasty Habs teams. The other half perhaps say it was Beliveau. No I don't think Lidstrom would have stood out like that.

You can't always just look at offense from the 1950s for defenseman and assume it is comparable to modern times. This was pre-Orr and Harvey was credited along with Kelly for helping popularize defensemen jumping and leading the rush. Obviously Orr took it up to a whole new level.

I said he was "stocky" like Bourque. Bourque was thicker, but I was just trying to say another way that Harvey was strong. He wasn't skinny by any means and I thought he was very solid in general. Neither were as tall as Lidstrom so that makes Lidstrom look lankier. None of that matters in an all-time sense of course, I am just saying how both were physical (Harvey and Bourque).
 

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,119
2,649
Lidstrom's ranking in history could be a topic on its own. It all depends on what you value.

Both players in their prime or peak: Robinson vs Lidstrom? Potvin vs Lidstrom? Pronger vs Lidstrom? Stevens vs Lidstrom? Coffey vs Lidstrom? Chelios vs Lidstrom?

I don't think it is all that obvious to me.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Let's ask Oliver Eckman-Larsson who tested equipment from the 1980s, a generation past Harvey's prime:

https://www.bardown.com/oliver-ekma...hockey-equipment-in-hilarious-video-1.1096195

Seems that OEL was gassed a few times as well.

Understanding what pre 1980 skaters accomplished and ranking them properly requires an appropriate appreciation of the changes in the game.

I grew up using equipment similar to the what he’s using in the video. It actually looks newer and better than some of the second hand stuff I used. I heard about this before but never watched it until now so thanks for the link. I was expecting that he would try out equipment from the 50’s or 60’s actually. I’ve stated numerous times that skates and sticks have advanced a lot and that impacted what players could do. If you didn’t notice that then maybe you’re not reading my whole posts.

All the pro players in each era faced the same issues with regards to equipment on a peer to peer level. Didn’t the Soviets commonly crave Non-Soviet equipment because they tended to think it was better? This may be the exception.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Yes it was easier to finish ahead of Yzerman, Fedorov and Shanahan in the scoring race. The first wasn't in his offensive prime anymore. Fedorov almost never performed up to standards in the regular season and Shanahan wasn't a guy who put up eye popping offensive numbers, but rather just very good numbers usually. It would be easier to stick out among them than a prime Beliveau, Geoffrion, Richard and Moore.

I just always have Harvey and Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. Bourque I saw his whole career so I can say without a doubt he had a better career than Lidstrom. Harvey was more central to his dynasty's success than Lidstrom. Come on, we're talking about a guy that half of the people on this board would think is the straw the stirred the drink on those dynasty Habs teams. The other half perhaps say it was Beliveau. No I don't think Lidstrom would have stood out like that.

You can't always just look at offense from the 1950s for defenseman and assume it is comparable to modern times. This was pre-Orr and Harvey was credited along with Kelly for helping popularize defensemen jumping and leading the rush. Obviously Orr took it up to a whole new level.

I said he was "stocky" like Bourque. Bourque was thicker, but I was just trying to say another way that Harvey was strong. He wasn't skinny by any means and I thought he was very solid in general. Neither were as tall as Lidstrom so that makes Lidstrom look lankier. None of that matters in an all-time sense of course, I am just saying how both were physical (Harvey and Bourque).

It’s not that simple. During Harvey’s All-star seasons, which I would consider his prime, but not including his injury plagued season, the following Habs teammates finished ahead of him in scoring:

Olmstead, Curry, Gamble, Reay, Meger, Lach, Provost, Goyette, Marshall, Bonin, and Hicke.

This is not even including ‘59-60 when he finished 13th in team scoring. Then with a far weaker Rangers team he finished 6th and 4th in scoring, although during the latter he was not an AS. Listing his four best forward teammates on Montreal doesn’t explain away all of this.

During Lidstrom’s all-star seasons, not including his down ‘03-04 season, the following Red Wings finished ahead of him in scoring:

Larionov, Kozlov, Hull, and Hossa.

See the difference?

You keep saying Harvey stood out more, or at least people say he stood out a lot, but he simply was not involved in team offense nearly as much as Lidstrom overall. So again, shouldn’t you question this (nitpick?) or are you just going to let Harvey off easy due to hearsay and because you clearly want to rate him higher just because? I think you’ve already answered the question quite loudly with deafening silence. Your nitpicking comment really only applies to one guy and not the other.

Did Harvey really join and lead the rush that much? I don’t think he did. He could and did at times, and it’s certainly part of his highlight package, but I saw him pass it up to his forwards more often than not and his offensive stats speak to that. Lidstrom didn’t join or lead the rush very much at all but he still had better numbers so maybe era wouldn’t impact him. One thing that Lidstrom did have that was probably impacted by the era he played in was his shot. It was a weapon Harvey didn’t have but it wasn’t impossible because Geoffrion developed a “booming” slap shot in the same era with the same stick technology.

The stocky comment is still a weird point after claiming Bourque and Harvey were so similar in every way but you’ve backtracked now so I’ll just move on from that, wondering if you even know who Harvey was. Again, you clearly want this Canadiens legend to be ahead of the Swede no matter what because you always had it that way. This is the dogma thing that appears as strong as ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BehindTheTimes

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Lidstrom's ranking in history could be a topic on its own. It all depends on what you value.

Both players in their prime or peak: Robinson vs Lidstrom? Potvin vs Lidstrom? Pronger vs Lidstrom? Stevens vs Lidstrom? Coffey vs Lidstrom? Chelios vs Lidstrom?

I don't think it is all that obvious to me.

I don’t think Harvey is obvious either but people need to drop the dogmatic stance with him to accomplish anything. There’s a big group of posters here who want him to be untouchable so all the usual metrics get tossed out for him. If these exchanges have done anything it has further cemented that to me. Hopefully others have noticed, too.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Lidstrom's ranking in history could be a topic on its own. It all depends on what you value.

Both players in their prime or peak: Robinson vs Lidstrom? Potvin vs Lidstrom? Pronger vs Lidstrom? Stevens vs Lidstrom? Coffey vs Lidstrom? Chelios vs Lidstrom?

I don't think it is all that obvious to me.

It’s definitely a tough one to find a balance with between peak level and longevity and consistency. I think the closer parallel is actually Martin Brodeur - as it doesn’t involve the dynamics of league composition and both hit the same high notes on great teams.

I don’t think either should necessarily have to rely on a non-contemporaneous player’s reputation for their top-10 argument.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353

Oh boy, not that thread.

You were taking Pronger's single Hart, which was his career season that luckily coincided with Jagr missing games, and trying to make his whole career into more than it was. That was his only top 10 Hart finish of his career. Meanwhile, Lidstrom had 7 top 10 finishes and he clearly got voted down because "defenseman have their own trophy" several times.

Obviously Pronger had a better career than Theodore but Hart voting wise, it's similar to Theodore vs. Brodeur.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
It’s definitely a tough one to find a balance with between peak level and longevity and consistency. I think the closer parallel is actually Martin Brodeur - as it doesn’t involve the dynamics of league composition and both hit the same high notes on great teams.

I don’t think either should necessarily have to rely on a non-contemporaneous player’s reputation for their top-10 argument.

Orr is a lock for the top 3 for most, never mind the top 10. There should be at least one, and possibly two more defenseman in the top 10, especially if one is excluding goaltenders. Shouldn't people compare the other top defensemen candidates? And don't posters constantly compare across eras here? Frankly, having someone like Harvey in your top 10 while excluding guys like Bourque and Lidstrom needs to be justified, not just excused as some fact. That's what I'm going on about here and the arguments coming back are very questionable, at best.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Orr is a lock for the top 3 for most, never mind the top 10. There should be at least one, and possibly two more defenseman in the top 10

Not necessarily. Consider how often at any given time that the best skater is not a defenseman. The four best skaters of the post-lockout era have all been forwards. At the very least, the two best skaters of the post-WHA through pre-DPE era were forwards (more commonly, people say the three best). For the Original 6, it’s probably 5 out of 6 and maybe all of the top-5.

I don’t know that defense is so wholly unique of a position that it requires a specific amount of representation when it so rarely produces the very best skaters in the world relative to the forward position. Orr is an exception and is treated as such. Shore is probably the next closest thing (1a to Morenz over the first half-century of hockey history). Beyond them, you basically have to isolate much smaller stretches - the 2-year windows when names like Pronger, Lidstrom, Karlsson, etc. entered the discussion only for a forward to very obviously take back the title.

I could maybe find room for six defensemen in my top-25, but to shoehorn any more than Orr into the very top of the list for the sake of meeting a quota runs into the issue of players vs. their contemporaries. Shore may be a higher ranking defenseman than Morenz is a forward, but he’s not necessarily better. Bourque may be a higher ranking defenseman than Messier is a forward, but he’s not necessarily better. Lidstrom may be a higher ranking defenseman than Brodeur is a goaltender, but he’s not necessarily better. Karlsson may already be a higher ranking defenseman than Malkin is a forward, but he’s certainly not better.

A forward-heavy start to a top-100 list probably more aligns with reality than the needs-based ATD lists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
353
Not necessarily. Consider how often at any given time that the best skater is not a defenseman. The four best skaters of the post-lockout era have all been forwards. At the very least, the two best skaters of the post-WHA through pre-DPE era were forwards (more commonly, people say the three best). For the Original 6, it’s probably 5 out of 6 and maybe all of the top-5.

I don’t know that defense is so wholly unique of a position that it requires a specific amount of representation when it so rarely produces the very best skaters in the world relative to the forward position. Orr is an exception and is treated as such. Shore is probably the next closest thing (1a to Morenz over the first half-century of hockey history). Beyond them, you basically have to isolate much smaller stretches - the 2-year windows when names like Pronger, Lidstrom, Karlsson, etc. entered the discussion only for a forward to very obviously take back the title.

I could maybe find room for six defensemen in my top-25, but to shoehorn any more than Orr into the very top of the list for the sake of meeting a quota runs into the issue of players vs. their contemporaries. Shore may be a higher ranking defenseman than Morenz is a forward, but he’s not necessarily better. Bourque may be a higher ranking defenseman than Messier is a forward, but he’s not necessarily better. Lidstrom may be a higher ranking defenseman than Brodeur is a goaltender, but he’s not necessarily better. Karlsson may already be a higher ranking defenseman than Malkin is a forward, but he’s certainly not better.

A forward-heavy start to a top-100 list probably more aligns with reality than the needs-based ATD lists.

To me this is pointing towards the complexities of comparing forwards with defensemen. If you really feel that top forwards are more valuable than top defensemen in general, excluding Orr, than maybe you and others who feel this way are simply underrating D. The top 10 guys were all crucial in winning games and were often invaluable but it's not as easy as pointing to high point totals as it is for forwards.

So many here have Harvey in their top 10 and reasoning like "historians say he was a huge part of the Habs dynasty" shouldn't cut it. Not when both Bourque and Lidstrom appear to have a noticeable edge on an individual level. Top 10 all-time is a lofty position so shouldn't this get questioned more than it does? I don't post a ton here but I lurk a lot and it seems like glowing praise is often enough for the guys most here didn't grow up with. It's far easier to criticize the players we watched and the luster comes off because we got to see everything, not just their highlight packages and praise from people looking back at their careers. For some guys like Shore we can't even watch him play so how could someone be comfortable having him in their top 10? It's like they are leaving that up to someone else instead of being able to make a clear decision themselves.
 

NoMessi

Registered User
Jan 2, 2009
1,696
453
I think Crosby was severly overrated post-concussion pre-sullivan. I dont think hes should have even one Conn Smythe.

There was the negatives, but there is so much more positive sides to discuss. Hes got 3 Conn Smythe worthy runs (08, 09 and 17), he also have had playoffs ending early when hes been good or really good, especially this spring. All in all, a GREAT playoff performer. If he didnt have that injury in 2008 I think he would be talked about as a top 5 player, maybe even within striking distance of Howe at number 4. Yes, I know Lemieux is most often ranked 4th, but not on my list.

Malkin is a better hockey player than Crosby, not by much or anything, but he is. He is not however a greater hockey player than Crosby. And im not talking trophies, because they are subjective but Im talking about top 3, top 5 and top 10 finishes. That is why Crosby is in my top 10 and not Malkin, or Ovechkin for that matter even if they had better peeks.

I can actually agree that Crosby is inside top 10 now, along with Jagr that is. Regular season its Jagr every day of the week, but Crosbys third quality run was enough for him to be seen as a playoff great.

Malkin and Ovechkin is harder. For peek I have them pretty high.

For players Ive seen in the NHL (No Makarov) in my lifetime its:
1. Gretzky, the greatest.
2. Lemieux, the best.
3. Crosby (yes, this is the first time ive ever ranked Crosby higher than Jagr), because he has shown more in the playoffs than Jagr, although the latter didnt really have a chance in his prime.
4. Jagr, a beast in the regular season. Would love to rank him even higher but lacks a bit in the playoffs due to bad teams when he was at his best.
5. Malkin, the third best player but too much missed time or playing on half a leg. GREAT playoff track record, but its hard to look past his injuries at this point.
6. Ovechkin, scoring wingers are hard to rank, but in his prime he was electrifying, and even now hes the best goalscorer in the league.
7. Lidström, the best defender in the league for over a decade. Could have had even more Norris's as far as im concerned.

Then its the Forsberg/Sakic/Yzerman/Bure (homer vote) tier.

And Mcdavid will have a chance to be greater than all but the first two, but not necessarily better. He have the perfect opportunity where all the old stars (the big three) are fading and the game is going more and more to where he has his strenghts.

No more up and coming competition and no injuries and we might have 10x Art Rosses. Yes, thats how much better he is than people his age.
 

Michael Farkas

Grace Personified
Jun 28, 2006
13,350
7,830
NYC
www.HockeyProspect.com
Just browsing the last couple pages and making stream of consciousness points as I read...

- Harvey was an incredible skater and one of the best I've seen. Multi-directional fluidness, stops-and-starts were on a dime, agile, small turning radius. I can't imagine too many better skaters in that era.

- It's interesting that a poster challenges a poster that he's "living in a fantasy" and the accused replies that he could play at the pace of the NHL game in the 1960's...and then doubles down on it by comparing it to children today, which seems irrelevant at best...

- Harvey standing still at the blueline is a function of his poise. Great NHL players can get away with that today because lull checking forwards into one move or slow them down (i.e. controlling the pace of the game) and then move against the flow of play. Seen more than just at the attack line, also seen in the setup to breakouts...it's using the checker's momentum against him - a staple to skilled players for a long time. It's much tougher to pull that off from a standing start... (oh, I see that was touched on shortly thereafter, good)

- Weird to try to mix skating speed (or whatever) and one-timers...and, I'd say even the slapshot is not used nearly as much any more...

- "I could literally do..." and "EVERYONE knows this/that..." have to be a two-stroke penalty, right? :laugh:

- Weird to compare team finishes given the eras and teammates. Didn't Harvey rack up a metric ton of top-3 defense scoring finishes in his prime...like vs the whole league? In an era with less assists per goal? Him not outscoring Jean Beliveau doesn't give me any heartburn...just like Bourque outscoring Craig Janney doesn't release any endorphins either...

- Harvey didn't have the same options at the time. Watch the film. Center outlet or puck rush. There were very few D-to-D passes to offset pressure in those days. So Harvey did carry it a ton, which was an interesting concept for the time. I wouldn't be D-to-D passing very much either if Al Langlois is my partner...

- I can't tell what the hang up is...isn't just lack of exposure to Harvey? We need an HF watch party to go through some games and work our way back through history...I just started making videos about future players, I might be in the wrong business haha...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->