Harvey Versus Lidstrom

[seventieslord]

Okay. How about we agree on this since it is a more modest statement?

The top 5 Canadian defensemen from the 50s were better than the top 5 defensemen in the world now?

Only the top 3 or 5 guys compete for the Norris anyway.

that makes more sense, because if you use a perfectly linear talent pool extrapolation and say that 30 then = 50 now or something, then it would follow that 3 then = 5 now, or that 5 then = 8 now. but just from natural variance that 8 could actually be a 5 if we're comparing particularly weak or strong years.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

When Hockey Outsider did his Hart and Norris share studies it was eventually deemed to not be a good comparison across different eras. I forget the exact reason and I'm too lazy to look it up, but it had something to do with how the voting was done and how points were assigned (I know the Hart was voted on a mid-season and end of season, was the same true for the Norris?)

Anyway, not saying that Lidstrom vs. Harvey isn't a good comparison or worthwhile debate, just saying that Norris shares isn't the best tool to use.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Harvey Norris Share (in winning years):
55: 34.6%
56: 62.2%
57: 73.6%
58: 22.2%
60: 67.5%
61: 67.9%
62: 53.9%

Lidstrom's Norris Shares:
01: 90.3%
02: 46.7%
03: 67.7%
06: 70.5%
07: 60.8%
08: 94.7%

I think almost every number here is wrong. Here's what I have:

Year | Player | Votes | Max | Percentage
1955 | Doug Harvey | 147 | 180 | 81.7%
1956 | Doug Harvey | 156 | 180 | 86.7%
1957 | Doug Harvey | 159 | 180 | 88.3%
1958 | Doug Harvey | 153 | 180 | 85.0%
1960 | Doug Harvey | 129 | 180 | 71.7%
1961 | Doug Harvey | 162 | 180 | 90.0%
1962 | Doug Harvey | 102 | 180 | 56.7%

Year | Player | Votes | Max | Percentage
2001 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 600 | 620 | 96.8%
2002 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 472 | 620 | 76.1%
2003 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 560 | 620 | 90.3%
2006 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 1152 | 1290 | 89.3%
2007 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 1217 | 1430 | 85.1%
2008 | Nicklas Lidstrom | 1313 | 1340 | 98%

EDIT: you may be using different terminology then me. When I say "Norris share" I'm referring to what percentage of the total available votes a player earned. When Lidstrom earned 600 out of a possible 620 votes in 2001, he got a 96.8% share.

When Hockey Outsider did his Hart and Norris share studies it was eventually deemed to not be a good comparison across different eras. I forget the exact reason and I'm too lazy to look it up, but it had something to do with how the voting was done and how points were assigned (I know the Hart was voted on a mid-season and end of season, was the same true for the Norris?)

For whatever reason, Hart and Norris trophy winners have been taking an increasingly large share of the votes each decade.

From 1990 to 2009 (I'm choosing 1990 as the starting point because Gretzky had a stranglehold on the Hart until 1989), the average Hart trophy winner earned 87% of the vote. A grand total of one player (in those 19 years) won the Hart with less than 70% of the votes (Chris Pronger in 2000, with a 68% share).

From 1950 to 1967, the average Hart trophy winner earned just 63% of the vote. Just one player (Stan Mikita in 1967) won the Hart by more than 87%, the average share for the past two decades. Fourteen out of the eighteen players won the Hart won the Hart with less than 70% of the votes - that was commonplace in the Original Six era, but it would be a very weak Hart win these days.

For that reason I concluded that Norris (and Hart) shares are not directly comparable across eras.

Why did this happen? I suspect that, nowadays, most awards votes rely heavily on stats and the accounts of other people in the media. When there were only six teams, the media had a better chance of watching a greater percentage of the league's games, therefore gaining the ability to rely less on statistics and make more informed choices about the best players.

 

[JackSlater]

I see Harvey and Lidstrom as close enough that a legitimate case can be made for either in front of the other. I don't really see a big gap between any of the next six best defencemen after Orr to be honest. Regarding the competition each faced, I would put Lidstrom ahead. Lidstrom's competition over the last several years has been pretty weak, but his competition during his first few Norris years and the years before he actually won the Norris was pretty strong. Harvey is not far behind though, mainly due to Kelly being a stronger competitor than anyone Lidstrom had to compete against.

I find these two more similar than any other two great defencemen historically. Other than Harvey's physicality, I haven't really seen or heard much of a difference in their style of play and respective strengths. Does anyone know of any major differences?

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Ah, I had just listed their percentages of first place votes, not what should be rightfully considered their total share.

I agree it might not even be that useful in a comparison, I was just surprised by it and thought I would get a conversation going. I think there is no question Bourque faced greater competition in his era than Lidstrom, but Lidstrom is on a similar level with Harvey and all three faced better competition than Shore.

 

[Briere Up There*]

Thanks to whoever posted all those quotes about Harvey. Very enlightening. He seems like an O6 Lidstrom.

Still, I won't pretend I have enough information to make a proper comparison.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks to whoever posted all those quotes about Harvey. Very enlightening. He seems like an O6 Lidstrom.

Still, I won't pretend I have enough information to make a proper comparison.

Lidstrom's one weakness is his ability to handle physical forwards around the crease (I've seen a Red Wings fan, I think nik jr say that because of that Chelios was an even better PKer than Lidstrom when they both played together). Harvey didn't have that weakness. He was as physical as anyone, he just did it without taking penalties.

Other than that, I agree - they are very similar.

 

[EagleBelfour]

If some people wanna read on Doug Harvey, you can go on the All-Time Draft subforum and click on the bio thread. I won't post his entire biography on one of history board thread ... again!

I think there's two thing going for Harvey against Lidstrom:

- Harvey is a much stronger and physical defenceman than Lidstrom. he can contain the heaviest and strongest player with more ease.

- I think Harvey can control the pace of a game like no one ever done in the history of the sport. If you want to press your opponent on the offensive zone or your forwards need to catch their breath for a few minutes, Harvey is the defenceman you want on the ice.

The rest is pretty much even. #2-to#7 on my list are very close one another.

1-Orr
2-Harvey
3-Shore
4-Bourque
5-Lidstrom
6-Kelly
7-Potvin

...The rest

 

[Reds4Life]

If some people wanna read on Doug Harvey, you can go on the All-Time Draft subforum and click on the bio thread. I won't post his entire biography on one of history board thread ... again!

I think there's two thing going for Harvey against Lidstrom:

- Harvey is a much stronger and physical defenceman than Lidstrom. he can contain the heaviest and strongest player with more ease.

That's just not true. Lidstrom has had no problems with Lindros, Bertuzzi and other big. physical players. "with more ease" is subjective and it can easily be argued Lidstrom has less problems than Harvey with such forwards.

As for controlling the pace of the game, they played different game, it is impossible to compare objectively.

 

[JackSlater]

That's just not true. Lidstrom has had no problems with Lindros, Bertuzzi and other big. physical players. "with more ease" is subjective and it can easily be argued Lidstrom has less problems than Harvey with such forwards.

As for controlling the pace of the game, they played different game, it is impossible to compare objectively.

There's really no case for Lidstrom being better against big forwards. As was already said in this thread Lidstrom's only real weakness (compared to the rest of his game) is handling big forwards in front of the net. His non physical style is great, but in that situation physicality is required. It's an issue that Harvey did not have.

 

[BraveCanadian]

There's really no case for Lidstrom being better against big forwards. As was already said in this thread Lidstrom's only real weakness (compared to the rest of his game) is handling big forwards in front of the net. His non physical style is great, but in that situation physicality is required. It's an issue that Harvey did not have.

I agree that might be one of the only chinks in Lidstrom's defensive armor.

Lidstrom's positioning is so good though.. how often does he forfeit position in front?

A big guy has to get there (and the puck has to get to him) before it becomes an issue.

I mean, he proved against pretty much the most dominating physical specimen at forward that he could win that matchup, largely by preventing it from even getting to that point.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree that might be one of the only chinks in Lidstrom's defensive armor.

Lidstrom's positioning is so good though.. how often does he forfeit position in front?

A big guy has to get there (and the puck has to get to him) before it becomes an issue.

I mean, he proved against pretty much the most dominating physical specimen at forward that he could win that matchup, largely by preventing it from even getting to that point.

It definitely isn't a huge problem with Lidstrom, but when comparing two of the best ever any little issue becomes noteworthy. Lidstrom is often smart enough to avoid the situation, but there are inevitably times when he is forced into a battle on the boards or in front of the net where physicality would be beneficial. I agree that he defended against Lindros so effectively by just preventing those situations altogether, but against a smarter player like Forsberg those physical situations were harder to avoid.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It definitely isn't a huge problem with Lidstrom, but when comparing two of the best ever any little issue becomes noteworthy. Lidstrom is often smart enough to avoid the situation, but there are inevitably times when he is forced into a battle on the boards or in front of the net where physicality would be beneficial. I agree that he defended against Lindros so effectively by just preventing those situations altogether, but against a smarter player like Forsberg those physical situations were harder to avoid.

Possibly, but how good was Harvey's positioning etc. when he was drunk or hung over?

I think we look at these things through a pretty skewed glass because our information about older players contains vastly more positive information than negative.. it is just the nature of things.

How many people giving quotes regarding Harvey (for example) were brought up with "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Not to detract from Harvey at all but I think we have to keep in mind how much more we have all seen Lidstrom and how much of a fishbowl he is in compared to the guys he is being compared to constantly on these boards.

We see all his (very few and not very bad at all) flaws because there is overwhelming information available about him.

The vast majority of people here didn't see Harvey at all. Not once.

All the stats and award voting in the world doesn't substitute for that.

Now personally I still think that Harvey and Lidstrom could be a cointoss by this point and a good argument could be made either way.

The fact that Lidstrom is even standing up to players that are basically mythology to most (not all) posters on here is a real credit to him if you ask me.

 

[Reds4Life]

It definitely isn't a huge problem with Lidstrom, but when comparing two of the best ever any little issue becomes noteworthy. Lidstrom is often smart enough to avoid the situation, but there are inevitably times when he is forced into a battle on the boards or in front of the net where physicality would be beneficial. I agree that he defended against Lindros so effectively by just preventing those situations altogether, but against a smarter player like Forsberg those physical situations were harder to avoid.

And what makes you think player like Forsberg couldn't beat Harvey physically? Harvey was certainly the best defenseman of his era, but he has had his off-ice issues, and he never played the modern short-shift based game. Any comparison to Lidstrom is subjective and biased one way or the other.

 

[JackSlater]

Possibly, but how good was Harvey's positioning etc. when he was drunk or hung over?

I think we look at these things through a pretty skewed glass because our information about older players contains vastly more positive information than negative.. it is just the nature of things.

How many people giving quotes regarding Harvey (for example) were brought up with "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Not to detract from Harvey at all but I think we have to keep in mind how much more we have all seen Lidstrom and how much of a fishbowl he is in compared to the guys he is being compared to constantly on these boards.

We see all his (very few and not very bad at all) flaws because there is overwhelming information available about him.

The vast majority of people here didn't see Harvey at all. Not once.

All the stats and award voting in the world doesn't substitute for that.

Now personally I still think that Harvey and Lidstrom could be a cointoss by this point and a good argument could be made either way.

The fact that Lidstrom is even standing up to players that are basically mythology to most (not all) posters on here is a real credit to him if you ask me.

I don't really know what you're getting at. Obviously since they aren't contemporaries we can't compare them perfectly. My main point is that Harvey has no defensive weakness that I know of. Lidstrom has a slight weakness relative to the rest of his game. Clearly in this regard Harvey benefits since I haven't had the opportunity to watch him play hundreds of times and find faults with him. I would like to hear about any weaknesses Harvey had defensively if anyone knows of any, just to make the comparison as accurate as it possible can be. I do not believe his alcoholism really hindered his defence when he was in his prime years at the very least.

And what makes you think player like Forsberg couldn't beat Harvey physically? Harvey was certainly the best defenseman of his era, but he has had his off-ice issues, and he never played the modern short-shift based game. Any comparison to Lidstrom is subjective and biased one way or the other.

I doubt that Forsberg would give Harvey as much trouble because from what I know about Harvey he was excellent in physical battles, even with the most physical forwards of the day. Lidstrom is great at preventing those situations (as Harvey was as well) but once in one he isn't as exceptional. Once again clearly any comparison between them is not going to be 100% accurate.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not in the "newer is always better" crowd but that thinking seems naive.
You must think Canadian hockey has taken a nose dive if that is the case.

Fully agree here although some will accuse me of being in the "newer is better" crowd.

No idea on how anyone can say that the 30 best Canadian Dmen in the 50 are better than the top 30 Dmen of today.

I'm really very interested on the argument behind that assertion.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
Okay. How about we agree on this since it is a more modest statement?

The top 5 Canadian defensemen from the 50s were better than the top 5 defensemen in the world now?

Only the top 3 or 5 guys compete for the Norris anyway.

that makes more sense, because if you use a perfectly linear talent pool extrapolation and say that 30 then = 50 now or something, then it would follow that 3 then = 5 now, or that 5 then = 8 now. but just from natural variance that 8 could actually be a 5 if we're comparing particularly weak or strong years.

Okay that makes more sense but how likely is it that 5 guys out of a population of say 15 million are going to be better than 5 guys from out of say 100 plus million?

I say the chances of that happening are pretty slim and that's without even looking at any of the players involved.

It could happen but on a scale of 1-100 it probably maxs out at say a 1.

I'd say that it is much more likely that an evening out of the talent pool, from the 50's compared to today, makes it harder for the top 5 guys to stick out as much as back then. Same thing would apply to comparing the 30 guys as well.

It's not an absolute but just way more likely.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Possibly, but how good was Harvey's positioning etc. when he was drunk or hung over?

I think we look at these things through a pretty skewed glass because our information about older players contains vastly more positive information than negative.. it is just the nature of things.

How many people giving quotes regarding Harvey (for example) were brought up with "If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at all."

Not to detract from Harvey at all but I think we have to keep in mind how much more we have all seen Lidstrom and how much of a fishbowl he is in compared to the guys he is being compared to constantly on these boards.

We see all his (very few and not very bad at all) flaws because there is overwhelming information available about him.

The vast majority of people here didn't see Harvey at all. Not once.

All the stats and award voting in the world doesn't substitute for that.

Now personally I still think that Harvey and Lidstrom could be a cointoss by this point and a good argument could be made either way.

The fact that Lidstrom is even standing up to players that are basically mythology to most (not all) posters on here is a real credit to him if you ask me.

Excellent post here and brings up the point that all modern players are scrutinized far more than players from the past and this, in some small way, influences a great number of people when evaluating players from different eras.

One more thing that I will add is something that someone brought up in another post, I believe it was the Bourque versus Lidstrom one.

Lidstrom has played at his high defensive level and only taken 478 PIM in 1461 games while Harvey had 1216 PIM in 1113 games.

This lead to more PP opportunities against the Habs compared to Detroit. Not sure how we can equate this but it is also impossible to determine how much more valuable Harvey's physical play was compared to Lidstrom defensive play.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Excellent post here and brings up the point that all modern players are scrutinized far more than players from the past and this, in some small way, influences a great number of people when evaluating players from different eras.

One more thing that I will add is something that someone brought up in another post, I believe it was the Bourque versus Lidstrom one.

Lidstrom has played at his high defensive level and only taken 478 PIM in 1461 games while Harvey had 1216 PIM in 1113 games.

This lead to more PP opportunities against the Habs compared to Detroit. Not sure how we can equate this but it is also impossible to determine how much more valuable Harvey's physical play was compared to Lidstrom defensive play.

Trying to compare net penalty minutes from today to the 50's and 60's is completely unreasonable.
Not saying there still won't be a difference but it would be reasonable to first find out how many of Harvey's minutes were from major's because unlike Lidstrom, Harvey had to actually stand up for himself and drop the mits on a regular basis.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Trying to compare net penalty minutes from today to the 50's and 60's is completely unreasonable.
Not saying there still won't be a difference but it would be reasonable to first find out how many of Harvey's minutes were from major's because unlike Lidstrom, Harvey had to actually stand up for himself and drop the mits on a regular basis.

It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. That's actually a huge difference regardless of the era's involved. Also I'd like to know how often Harvey really fought?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Trying to compare net penalty minutes from today to the 50's and 60's is completely unreasonable.
Not saying there still won't be a difference but it would be reasonable to first find out how many of Harvey's minutes were from major's because unlike Lidstrom, Harvey had to actually stand up for himself and drop the mits on a regular basis.

I agree that it makes a difference from minors (even offsetting ones and majors) but Harvey was 7th overall in PIM during the time he played while Lidstrom is at 182 (up until last season).

There are arguments to be made on both sides, as to the overall value of Harvey's psychical play compared to the time spent in the box (thus not being able to do anything to help his team win) and the incredibly low amount of PIM's that Lidstrom has taken while being an extremely effective defender.

If anything Lidstrom should get some credit for being such a great defender without his physical play (and the PIM's that would incur).

Some might even call it revolutionary.

 

[JackSlater]

I agree that it makes a difference from minors (even offsetting ones and majors) but Harvey was 7th overall in PIM during the time he played while Lidstrom is at 182 (up until last season).

There are arguments to be made on both sides, as to the overall value of Harvey's psychical play compared to the time spent in the box (thus not being able to do anything to help his team win) and the incredibly low amount of PIM's that Lidstrom has taken while being an extremely effective defender.

If anything Lidstrom should get some credit for being such a great defender without his physical play (and the PIM's that would incur).

Some might even call it revolutionary.

The penalty minutes are definitely worth considering and a positive in Lidstrom's favour. I wouldn't go as far as to call "taking few penalties" a revolutionary strategy though, but rather very effective if you can pull it off.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The penalty minutes are definitely worth considering and a positive in Lidstrom's favour. I wouldn't go as far as to call "taking few penalties" a revolutionary strategy though, but rather very effective if you can pull it off.

Heck I skipped the sarcastic icon as the 1st player to do this or that is a luck thing of being born earlier and is something that I really dismiss as there are enough other factors to consider guys on IMO.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Possibly, but how good was Harvey's positioning etc. when he was drunk or hung over?

I would like to see a source that Harvey played drunk. Thank You.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Harvey was a lot more penalized than I had thought. More so than Bourqe, but probably not as much as Shore (1,047 PIM in 14 seasons).

Reminds me of his spearing incident - Harvey was not really a 'clean' player, but also not really a 'dirty' player for the times.