Harvey Versus Lidstrom

[seventieslord]

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

That's just rude.

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.

I'm not saying that it's for sure, or necessarily likely. I think the most likely thing is that as the talent pool increases (not the NHL size, but the talent pool), so will the number of nhl-caliber players, stars, and elite players are a fairly proportional level. At the same time, if we're talking about a small class of players (the elites), what Carl was saying was plausible - the top-5 might only be as good as the top-5 20 years ago, even if proportionally we'd expect to have 7-8 players that good today. In a few years we might have 10-11. On average, I think it washes out in the long run.

if you're talking specifically about an increase from 15M to 100M, which time period are you referring to? Cause that is a huge increase, 7X. the canadian population has only increased about 3.5X in 80 years, and they still account for half of the NHL players, so assumedly about half the talent pool as well.

 

[steve141]

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?

One difference is that Harvey was known as a "second goalie", i.e. he was an amazing shot-blocker, making "saves" much like a butterfly goalie would. Lidstrom usually stays on his feet, focusing more on catching rebounds.

 

[Hardyvan123]

That's just rude.



I'm not saying that it's for sure, or necessarily likely. I think the most likely thing is that as the talent pool increases (not the NHL size, but the talent pool), so will the number of nhl-caliber players, stars, and elite players are a fairly proportional level. At the same time, if we're talking about a small class of players (the elites), what Carl was saying was plausible - the top-5 might only be as good as the top-5 20 years ago, even if proportionally we'd expect to have 7-8 players that good today. In a few years we might have 10-11. On average, I think it washes out in the long run.

if you're talking specifically about an increase from 15M to 100M, which time period are you referring to? Cause that is a huge increase, 7X. the canadian population has only increased about 3.5X in 80 years, and they still account for half of the NHL players, so assumedly about half the talent pool as well.

The 100 million was a WAG (wild ass guess_ as to the parts of the population of the European countries that are producing NHL Dmen as well.

Even if Canada population increased 3 1/2 times from the 06 era and Canada produces 50% (opposed to 100%) that would be a difference of roughly 7 times even without the players from other countries.

The original and revised assertions of the top 30 and top 5 being better from the 06 era is statistically unlikely and very little proof or arguments have been put forward by Carl about that position.

Carl's 1st point was that the top 30 (basically of of the 06 Dmen) were better than the top 30 of today so I'm not really sure how seriously he is really looking at the 2 different groups being discussed in the 1st place anyways.

 

[finchster]

I think the talent pool would be an interesting study because you cannot look at pure numbers of participants and make any conclusions. Japan for example has about 22,000 registered hockey players but no NHL players, similar numbers as Switzerland and almost three times more than Slovakia. If you also look at % of population participation, Russia is 13th on that list with countries like Slovenia and Austria having higher participation rates based on population.

With many European teams beginning to reject NHL dominance and build their own leagues and teams I believe this effects the NHL talent pool as well. Take a look of Ufa in the KHL, there are plenty of players who were legitimate NHL players at one point, the top teams in the KHL do have NHL level talent on them.

 

[steve141]

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.

There is no automatic correlation between the number of players and the number of great players. It has more to do with culture, training fascilities, coaches etc.

More players does not guarantee more great players. How do you otherwise explain Sweden having two of the top four scorers this season, and five of the top 14, despite having only four percent of the world's registered hockey players?

 

[Rhiessan71]

There is no automatic correlation between the number of players and the number of great players. It has more to do with culture, training fascilities, coaches etc.

More players does not guarantee more great players. How do you otherwise explain Sweden having two of the top four scorers this season, and five of the top 14, despite having only four percent of the world's registered hockey players?

Yeah the last I checked even though the world's population is much greater now and a much greater portion of that population is better educated than in 1879, there still hasn't been another Einstein.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There is no automatic correlation between the number of players and the number of great players. It has more to do with culture, training fascilities, coaches etc.

More players does not guarantee more great players. How do you otherwise explain Sweden having two of the top four scorers this season, and five of the top 14, despite having only four percent of the world's registered hockey players?

I said it would be more likely, there is never an atuomatic correlation to these things in sports.

Other factors obviously do come into play like perhaps advanced training of Demn from Sweden lately but I have yet to hear about any advanced training techniques from the 06 era that were suddenly lost to the current generation.

Maybe the top 5 or even the top 30 from 06 were better than the top 5 or top 30 of today, it's just not very likely IMO.

 

[Epsilon]

Some of the numbers and facts being brought up in this thread also naturally lead to another question:

What's the main argument for having Harvey ahead of Bourque?

Is it playoff performances/Stanley Cups? Because from a wide-angle view it looks like they had comparable peaks/primes (might even be tempted to give peak to Bourque for his near Hart-winning season), with Bourque's being against usually stronger and deeper competition, and Bourque wins for longevity.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Some of the numbers and facts being brought up in this thread also naturally lead to another question:

What's the main argument for having Harvey ahead of Bourque?

Is it playoff performances/Stanley Cups? Because from a wide-angle view it looks like they had comparable peaks/primes (might even be tempted to give peak to Bourque for his near Hart-winning season), with Bourque's being against usually stronger and deeper competition, and Bourque wins for longevity.

I think there are number of things going on here with some of the past greats like Harvey (and Shore for that matter).

Cups, Norris wins all star team selections all account for some of the past guys getting more credit than recent guys (with more competition for all of those 3 things).

Also once a guy is place on a list 2nd or 3rd as Harvey and Shore often are it becomes virtually impossible to knock them off that list unless a player has an Orr or Gretzky type of run, which has become increasingly harder to do to the increased and leveling out of the competition.

This is the wrong approach IMO as it assumes that the NHL and level of competition for Cups, and awards stays the same and has the same value each and every year when it doesn't all the time.

that being said it is extremely hard to compare guys from today to past years stars, many of whom we have never seen play live and this comparison is very hard to gauge, so unless there is an Orr or Gretzky like performance guys like Harvey don't get bumped in a lot of viewers minds.

I'm much more sure of the rankings of players that I have seen, basically 1970 onward than the players from before that era were I try to slot in based on any knowledge I can acquire about the player and type of league he played in.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

My main reason for having Harvey above Bourque is while Bourque was amongst the top defensive players in his era, Harvey was the man in his and just might be the greatest defensively of all-time.

Bourque may have been better by a good degree offensively, but I view that as secondary to actual defense from a defenseman. For the same reason I weigh offense from a forward more than defense.

So despite Bourque's deserved Hart, at their very best I believe Harvey was the better defenseman. Bourque makes it very close with his extra sustained elite play, however.

 

[newfy]

I dont know if Lidstrom not being able to handle big forwards is really true. Just because you aren't tough infront of the net doesn't mean Lids wasn't great at using his stick to tie guys up, if he wasn't he wouldnt be in the league.

A prime example of this is Scotty Bowman matching Lidstrom up with the legion of doom line in 97 instead of the second in norris voting, arguably most physical defenceman in the league in Vladdy Konstinitinov.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Some of the numbers and facts being brought up in this thread also naturally lead to another question:

What's the main argument for having Harvey ahead of Bourque?

Is it playoff performances/Stanley Cups? Because from a wide-angle view it looks like they had comparable peaks/primes (might even be tempted to give peak to Bourque for his near Hart-winning season), with Bourque's being against usually stronger and deeper competition, and Bourque wins for longevity.

Ill just cut and paste my last response to this one.

Bourque, while one of my favorite players, just is not at Harvey's level. Harvey's peak was ridiculous. He was THE best defensive defenseman and Penalty killer ever to lace up the skates and was also the second best offensively at the same time(Red Kelly taking a slight lead there).

You want to compare their competition for the Norris trophy? Bourque's field was larger, while Harvey's had Red Kelly(Who was better than any of Bourque's top competition), followed by Gadsby, a guy who rightfully ranks ahead of many of Bourque's top competition. Gadsby is ahead of Macinnis, Leetch, Stevens, Langway, Howe, etc, while Kelly at his best was equal to or better than Potvin, Robinson, Chelios or Coffey. Had the Norris existed in 52-53, Harvey would have an 8th to add to his collection.

Harvey's competition was very stiff. Trying to imply he had easy competition is wrong.

Harvey was, in my opinion, the most important player on that Habs dynasty while he was there. He was certainly their best playoff performer. Bourque was no playoff slouch himself, but compared to Harvey? He just doesn't compare. Few players do.
Hockey Outsider did a graph regarding how much the Habs scoring went up or down during their cup winning years, and I was no surprise that Harvey's numbers jumped through the roof in those years.
Offensive Production: regular season PPG vs playoffs PPG on the 11 Stanley Cup winning teams
Minimum 250 RS games and 40 PO games

Player|RegSeason|Playoffs|%Change
Doug Harvey | 0.56 | 0.82 | 46.4
J.C. Tremblay | 0.52 | 0.75 | 44.2
Bernie Geoffrion | 1.11 | 1.39 | 25.2
Dickie Moore | 1.03 | 1.16 | 12.6
Maurice Richard | 0.94 | 1.05 | 11.7
Yvan Cournoyer | 0.88 | 0.94 | 6.8
Jacques Lemaire | 0.86 | 0.91 | 5.8
Jacques Laperriere | 0.41 | 0.43 | 4.9
Jean Beliveau | 1.16 | 1.19 | 2.6
Terry Harper | 0.19 | 0.18 | -5.3
Ralph Backstrom | 0.6 | 0.54 | -10
Henri Richard | 0.83 | 0.74 | -10.8
Ted Harris | 0.28 | 0.24 | -14.3
Claude Provost | 0.62 | 0.51 | -17.7
John Ferguson | 0.56 | 0.46 | -17.9
Bobby Rousseau | 0.91 | 0.64 | -29.7
Tom Johnson | 0.35 | 0.24 | -31.4
Don Marshall | 0.4 | 0.27 | -32.5
Jean-Guy Talbot | 0.27 | 0.18 | -33.3
Claude Larose | 0.44 | 0.25 | -43.2
Bob Turner | 0.18 | 0.09 | -50

Bourque's longevity edge vs the Peak edge and playoff edge Harvey possesses does not close the gap in my opinion.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Ill just cut and paste my last response to this one.

Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post in bold

Bourque, while one of my favorite players, just is not at Harvey's level. Harvey's peak was ridiculous. He was THE best defensive defenseman and Penalty killer ever to lace up the skates and was also the second best offensively at the same time(Red Kelly taking a slight lead there).

You want to compare their competition for the Norris trophy? Bourque's field was larger, while Harvey's had Red Kelly(Who was better than any of Bourque's top competition), followed by Gadsby, a guy who rightfully ranks ahead of many of Bourque's top competition. Gadsby is ahead of Macinnis, Leetch, Stevens, Langway, Howe, etc, while Kelly at his best was equal to or better than Potvin, Robinson, Chelios or Coffey. Had the Norris existed in 52-53, Harvey would have an 8th to add to his collection.

Harvey's competition was very stiff. Trying to imply he had easy competition is wrong.

Harvey was, in my opinion, the most important player on that Habs dynasty while he was there. He was certainly their best playoff performer. Bourque was no playoff slouch himself, but compared to Harvey? He just doesn't compare. Few players do.
Hockey Outsider did a graph regarding how much the Habs scoring went up or down during their cup winning years, and I was no surprise that Harvey's numbers jumped through the roof in those years.
Offensive Production: regular season PPG vs playoffs PPG on the 11 Stanley Cup winning teams
Minimum 250 RS games and 40 PO games

Player RegSeason Playoffs %Change
Doug Harvey 0.56 0.82 46.4
J.C. Tremblay 0.52 0.75 44.2
Bernie Geoffrion 1.11 1.39 25.2
Dickie Moore 1.03 1.16 12.6
Maurice Richard 0.94 1.05 11.7
Yvan Cournoyer 0.88 0.94 6.8
Jacques Lemaire 0.86 0.91 5.8
Jacques Laperriere 0.41 0.43 4.9
Jean Beliveau 1.16 1.19 2.6
Terry Harper 0.19 0.18 -5.3
Ralph Backstrom 0.6 0.54 -10
Henri Richard 0.83 0.74 -10.8
Ted Harris 0.28 0.24 -14.3
Claude Provost 0.62 0.51 -17.7
John Ferguson 0.56 0.46 -17.9
Bobby Rousseau 0.91 0.64 -29.7
Tom Johnson 0.35 0.24 -31.4
Don Marshall 0.4 0.27 -32.5
Jean-Guy Talbot 0.27 0.18 -33.3
Claude Larose 0.44 0.25 -43.2
Bob Turner 0.18 0.09 -50

Bourque's longevity edge vs the Peak edge and playoff edge Harvey possesses does not close the gap in my opinion.



Just to be clear here you are putting Kelly ahead of Potvin?

Not really sure of Gadsby ahead of ahead of those guys you listed either but maybe that's for another post.

And not to nitpick but to only pick the most impressive part of Harveys playoff record is hardly a fair comparison to Bourque IMO, if I am reading your post right.

To be fair in any comparison all of the record needs to be included IMO.

At the end of the day the playoff records of Lidstrom, Bourque and Potvin certainly are not any worse than Harveys and indeed it can be argued that they might be better overall ( and in the playoffs).

 

[Dark Shadows]

Just to be clear here you are putting Kelly ahead of Potvin?

No sir, although I do rank him closely. At his best, yes. but overall, I rank Potvin higher.

Not really sure of Gadsby ahead of ahead of those guys you listed either but maybe that's for another post.

Some very good arguments for him can be found in the previous HOH top 100 votes.

And not to nitpick but to only pick the most impressive part of Harveys playoff record is hardly a fair comparison to Bourque IMO, if I am reading your post right.

The original post in question was detailing who had the biggest impact for the Habs in the years they won the cup. Harvey was far and away the best.

To be fair in any comparison all of the record needs to be included IMO.

Feel free to make them.

At the end of the day the playoff records of Lidstrom, Bourque and Potvin certainly are not any worse than Harveys and indeed it can be argued that they might be better overall ( and in the playoffs).

Arguments can be made that Harvey was one of the top 5 playoff performers of all time.

In short, I am usually a big supporter of Bourque. But having seen Harvey, I just cannot put Bourque over him.

 

[JackSlater]

I dont know if Lidstrom not being able to handle big forwards is really true. Just because you aren't tough infront of the net doesn't mean Lids wasn't great at using his stick to tie guys up, if he wasn't he wouldnt be in the league.

A prime example of this is Scotty Bowman matching Lidstrom up with the legion of doom line in 97 instead of the second in norris voting, arguably most physical defenceman in the league in Vladdy Konstinitinov.

It isn't that Lidstrom can't handle big forwards, it's that he isn't as good in that area of defence as his is in all others. Compared to an average or even a good defenceman Lidstrom is still very good against big forwards.

As far as the 1997 finals it isn't surprising that Lidstrom/Murphy went up against Lindros instead of Konstantinov. Konstantinov was physical but he wasn't huge by any stretch. If he tried to play his regular physical game against Lindros he just would have gotten crushed.

 

[overg]

As far as the 1997 finals it isn't surprising that Lidstrom/Murphy went up against Lindros instead of Konstantinov. Konstantinov was physical but he wasn't huge by any stretch. If he tried to play his regular physical game against Lindros he just would have gotten crushed.

Konstantinov did regularly play against Lindros before the '97 finals. The only thing wrong with your statement is the use of the word "crushed," rather than "squashed." "Splatted" would also have been acceptable.

Vlad used to love taking runs at Lindros. He was like a bug on a windshield. Loved Konstantinov, but Lindros was simply way too big for him to handle. Still, *everyone* expected it to be a Konstantinov/Lindros match-up in the finals. Bowman really was thinking outside of the box by putting two of the least physical defensemen you could imagine up against that line.

Getting back to the point in general, I never noticed Lidstrom having any particular problems with physical forwards. He regularly owned Tkachuk back when that was actually an impressive accomplishment. Forsberg was his nemisis, but it had nothing to do with Peter's physical play, and everything to do with the fact that he was the only player I've ever seen who could stickhandle the puck past Lidstrom.