Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[RabbinsDuck]

As far as I am aware, Pronger and MacInnis almost never played together at even strength. It wasn't just big hits, big goals and a great +/-. Pronger was the runaway best player on a team that was a surprising President's Trophy winner.

I do think Lidstrom has had a few seasons as good as Pronger's 2000, but you really are underestimating how good Pronger was in 2000.

Pronger was in the Central in 2000 so I saw him a lot - honestly, while a huge year for him, I do not think he was any better than Lidstrom, defensively, and Lidstrom offensively outproduced him heavily.

I really believe non-physical defense was not acknowledged by the voters a full 4 years after Lidstrom displayed it for the world to see during the '97 playoffs.

I think Lidstrom deserved the Norris in '98, '00 and '09.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pronger was in the Central in 2000 so I saw him a lot - honestly, while a huge year for him, I do not think he was any better than Lidstrom, defensively, and Lidstrom offensively outproduced him heavily.

I really believe non-physical defense was not acknowledged by the voters a full 4 years after Lidstrom displayed it for the world to see during the '97 playoffs.

I think Lidstrom deserved the Norris in '98, '00 and '09.

Defenseman scoring, much more than forward scoring, depends on teammates, however. Specifically, a defenseman's point totals are highly affected by the skill of the forwards he is getting the puck to. And in 2000, Detroit was still stacked at the forward position.

Agree with you that non-physical defense didn't get much respect then. Actually, it still doesn't as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Defenseman scoring, much more than forward scoring, depends on teammates, however. Specifically, a defenseman's point totals are highly affected by the skill of the forwards he is getting the puck to. And in 2000, Detroit was still stacked at the forward position.

Agree with you that non-physical defense didn't get much respect then. Actually, it still doesn't as evidenced by many of the comments in this thread.

I just do not believe Pronger scoring 62 pts on a President Trophy winning team is more impressive than numerous other non-Hart winning seasons from defensemen since Bobby Orr.

Yzerman had 79 pts that year, Shanahan 78 pts with Fedorov at 62 pts, compared to Lidstrom's 73 pts.

Yzerman received more Hart votes that year.

 

[Pear Juice]

I can't see it. I just can't see it.

Nicklas Lidström is beyond any shadow of a doubt the best defenseman from 1997 to 2011 and he's got a whole cupboard full of trophies to prove it, everything from individual to team to international achievements. Still some people claim that he's not been dominant enough?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I can't see it. I just can't see it.

Nicklas Lidström is beyond any shadow of a doubt the best defenseman from 1997 to 2011 and he's got a whole cupboard full of trophies to prove it, everything from individual to team to international achievements. Still some people claim that he's not been dominant enough?

It is fairly perplexing considering how easily the word gets thrown around here generally..

 

[Epsilon]

Here's where the strength of competition argument comes back to bite you.
Runner up - Dion Phaneuf, and we all know how people feel about him here at HF boards.

That's a completely different argument, it has nothing to do with the claim I was debunking. He claimed that Lidstrom has never had a season where he was clearly the best defenseman in the league; I have an example where he obviously was.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Weakest Year For Forwards

I'll agree to disagree.
Lidstrom has always been better defensively than Pronger, and that includes Pronger's Hart winning season. Lidstrom was a better skater than Pronger, better positionally and was far and away better than Pronger with his stick. He also had a better breakout pass than Pronger that year.

Yes, Lidstrom was a better defenseman than Pronger that year, while I will allow Pronger was "more valuable to his team" than Lidstrom was - yet Pronger had MacInnis as his linemate while Lidstrom was playing with a 38 year-old, Larry Murphy.

Pronger wowed the media with big hits and big goals and a great +/-. In one of the weakest years for forwards ever.

How was it one of the weakest years for forwards?

 

[Epsilon]

How was it one of the weakest years for forwards?

-Jaromir Jagr was the only truly great forward in the league, and he missed a quarter of the season. Even so, he still almost won the Hart trophy; if he plays the entire year he walks away with it.

-Pavel Bure was the only other forward who put together anything resembling a dominating season, scoring 58 goals but doing it by mostly cherry-picking on an awful Florida team whose only objective seemed to be to pump up his totals.

-Two of the league's elite forwards, Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya, both had down years compared to what they were doing in the late 90s. In preceding years, both of them playing almost full seasons should have meant 100+ points each, not 80+.

-Owen Nolan and Tony Amonte were 2nd and 3rd in goals, neither getting close to 50. Mark Recchi finished 3rd in points, just barely above 90.

-Joe Sakic missed 22 games; Peter Forsberg missed 33.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Weakest Year For Forwards II

That forwards get hurt and miss games is not news or limited to a specific season.

The issue has to be addressed on two levels.

The alleged depth at forward in the NHL which suddenly disappeared with a few injuries. Effectively illustrating that there is little if any depth.

The amount of head to head competition between the elite forwards and elite dmen. Allowing for injuries and for the Bure portrayal as a cherrypicker, How many games were scheduled that would feature a Jagr v Lidstrom or a Bure v Lidstrom match-up?

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. Lidstrom as #2 defenseman, Lidstrom as top-10 all time, something else?

IMO, either the #2 or top-10 claims are patently silly. Lidstrom is a great defenseman but he's hardly alone in that aspect. But nobody seems to rank him lower than #5 or #15-25 respectively, so there actually seems to be some consensus despite all the quibbling over numbers...

 

[Epsilon]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. Lidstrom as #2 defenseman, Lidstrom as top-10 all time, something else?

IMO, either the #2 or top-10 claims are patently silly. Lidstrom is a great defenseman but he's hardly alone in that aspect. But nobody seems to rank him lower than #5 or #15-25 respectively, so there actually seems to be some consensus despite all the quibbling over numbers...

The threads really shouldn't have been merged, it was two completely different topics.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

just curious, which of the bolded categories would you place Doug Harvey in?
1. good to very good for a very, very long time
2. great for any real length of time

Both. Although I would say very good to great for 1.

 

[seventieslord]

That "never separated himself from any other defenseman in any given year" crack is pretty hilarious when one looks at the Norris trophy voting for 2000-01, 2005-06, and 2007-08.

Just to play Devil's advocate on this one... It's possible for most people to agree that Lidstrom is better, and for them all to agree that he is only a little bit better. The norris voting doesn't prove that everyone thought he was far and away the best.

Throughout Lidstrom's heyday I have always considered him the best in the league, but I have usually also felt that there were 2-3 other defensemen who were only a smidge below him (generally Bourque/Blake/Macinnis/Pronger, then onto Pronger/Chara/Niedermayer)

The point that Harvey was much more dominant compared to his peers is a very good one. I totally buy into that whole "talent pool" business and I think Harvey dominated against a smaller and therefore weaker bunch. But the degree to which he dominated totally transcends that, just like Orr 15-20 years later.

What is a RabbinsDuck anyways?

lol

That forwards get hurt and miss games is not news or limited to a specific season.

The issue has to be addressed on two levels.

The alleged depth at forward in the NHL which suddenly disappeared with a few injuries. Effectively illustrating that there is little if any depth.

The amount of head to head competition between the elite forwards and elite dmen. Allowing for injuries and for the Bure portrayal as a cherrypicker, How many games were scheduled that would feature a Jagr v Lidstrom or a Bure v Lidstrom match-up?

So?

You asked why it was a weak year for forwards and he explained why.

 

[Stonefly]

That's a completely different argument, it has nothing to do with the claim I was debunking. He claimed that Lidstrom has never had a season where he was clearly the best defenseman in the league; I have an example where he obviously was.

Yes I realize this.
But may I ask then what calibre of defencemen he separated himself from that season?

 

[danincanada]

The true problem is that people still don't realize how mind-bogglingly good Lidstrom was in his prime. He was for all intents and purposes perfect. Played every game, played half of every game, neutralized the oppositions' best forwards, jump started the Wings' offensive attack, ran the PP, killed penalties, out when trailing, out when leading, barely ever in the box, very very rarely made a mistake, etc...

And the kicker on top of all that is that Lidstrom's dominance really only showed if you were actively looking for it. He never did anything to draw attention or stand out. He just played his position perfectly for two decades. And even then it didn't really manifest until you realize he does it shift in shift out, game in game out, year in year out.

The players you listed played in a style that made you notice him. Lidstrom played in a style that kept himself and the forwards on the other side, very quiet.

This to me this is the post that non-Red Wings fans or people who don't watch Lidstrom all the time can't truly understand. It's very difficult to put a value on a player who was as incredibly efficient and "perfect" as Lidstrom was...and his career value is one of the highest ever because of this IMO. His non-physical style enabled him to avoid injuries, avoid penalties, and be a calming influence on the whole team and at the same time play at a consistently high level for so long.

As great as Lidstrom has been offensively IMO his defensive game is up there as the best ever and is what separates him from the pack the most. The number of plays he breaks up whether it's with his stick skills, positioning or anticipation is hard to fathom. It's machine like and the only comparable I can think of is Gretzky, although Lidstrom used his brain for defense and the transition game while Gretzky used his for offense.

I'm not sure exactly where he ranks all-time but I think it's higher than his detractors in this thread would like to believe. It's just insane to play that efficiently and limit mistakes to almost nil for such a long time, and do it in an NHL with the level of competition we see today.

 

[Epsilon]

Just to play Devil's advocate on this one... It's possible for most people to agree that Lidstrom is better, and for them all to agree that he is only a little bit better. The norris voting doesn't prove that everyone thought he was far and away the best.

This is true, but with regards to the particular year I mentioned, Lidstrom absolutely blew everyone else away in the voting for both the Norris and the All-Star spots (usually there's not that much consensus if anyone is at all close - look at how varied the voting is for all-star spots outside of Lidstrom's), in addition to being 4th in Hart voting (the next-best defenseman was Phaneuf at 12th with a single 2nd place vote). He also led the league in points by a comfortable margin despite missing 6 games, and all the guys who were even close to him were mediocre (at best) defensive players. He was clearly the best offensive and defensive defenseman in the league that season.

Throughout Lidstrom's heyday I have always considered him the best in the league, but I have usually also felt that there were 2-3 other defensemen who were only a smidge below him (generally Bourque/Blake/Macinnis/Pronger, then onto Pronger/Chara/Niedermayer)[/QUOTE]

I would argue that some of those guys were considerably more than a "smidge" below him, whether on a year-to-year basis for some, or over a consistent time period for others.

 

[gifted88]

Having never got to watch Harvey it's hard to compare.

 

[Epsilon]

So?

You asked why it was a weak year for forwards and he explained why.

An even more brief explanation would be something like this: in 99-00, there were probably 7 elite forwards in the NHL: Jagr, Bure, Selanne, Kariya, Lindros, Forsberg, and Sakic.

Every one of these players except Bure missed some time due to injury; of the other 6, only Selanne and Kariya missed less than 20 games. Bure racked up goals by cherry-picking on a mediocre team, while Selanne and Kariya both had off-years by their standards. Bure still finished a very close 3rd in Hart trophy voting despite only doing one thing well.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Weakest Year For Forwards III

Going to look at a number of prevailing attitudes that seem to be common by looking at a specific O6 season - 1961-62.

Up thread a poster listed 7 forwards considered elite from a forward pool culled from 28 teams. The 1961-62 season featured the following elite forwards - Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Bernie Geoffrion, Dickie Moore, Frank Mahovlich, Dave Keon, Red Kelly, Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita, Gordie Howe, Alex Delvecchio, Norm Ullman, Andy Bathgate, Jphn Bucyk or 14 culled from 6 teams.

1960-61 Canadiens scored 254 goals. After the season Doug Harvey was traded and during the 1961-62 season the Canadiens lost 56 total games from Beliveau, Moore, H. Richard while Geoffrion slumped by more than 20 goals. Yet the team scored 259 goals since the forwards from 4 on down the totem pole had the ability to step-up and produce.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1962.html

this would not happen during the dead puck era. Effectively the perception that smaller is weaker does not hold. The reverse is true.

This also means that in a small six team league the dmen were challenged every shift, not only when the rarer elite player was on. Likewise the dmen had to face each opposing elite player 14 times a season as opposed to the 4-8 times that such a match-up would occur during the dead puck era.

 

[Gobias Industries]

Maybe it's because I'm a huge Eastern Conference fan, but here's the crux of my concern in placing Lidstrom so high:

Most great players (top-10 especially) are referenced as such throughout their careers. Look at someone like Crosby, who at 23 is already being referred to as one of the greatest ever. It could be my lack of knowledge on the Western Conference, but did this ever happen to Lidstrom? In my recollection it has taken 7 Norris' and only in the last few years have I become aware of this type of "second greatest defenceman ever" debate.

To me, your play should indicate this standing far earlier than when you win your seventh Norris.

Again, maybe this was the case and I just wasn't privy to the chatter but could anyone address this thought.

 

[danincanada]

Maybe it's because I'm a huge Eastern Conference fan, but here's the crux of my concern in placing Lidstrom so high:

Most great players (top-10 especially) are referenced as such throughout their careers. Look at someone like Crosby, who at 23 is already being referred to as one of the greatest ever. It could be my lack of knowledge on the Western Conference, but did this ever happen to Lidstrom? In my recollection it has taken 7 Norris' and only in the last few years have I become aware of this type of "second greatest defenceman ever" debate.

To me, your play should indicate this standing far earlier than when you win your seventh Norris.

Again, maybe this was the case and I just wasn't privy to the chatter but could anyone address this thought.

The same argument would apply to Doug Harvey, who only started playing in the NHL at 23 years of age.

I think in both instances it shows that defense first dmen take longer to develop and perfect their game then offensive forwards or even flashy dmen like Coffey and Orr. Players like Lidstrom and Harvey seem to continue to dominate later in their careers than star forwards as well so it pretty much evens itself out. The end product is what really matters IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Wwii

The same argument would apply to Doug Harvey, who only started playing in the NHL at 23 years of age.

I think in both instances it shows that defense first dmen take longer to develop and perfect their game then offensive forwards or even flashy dmen like Coffey and Orr. Players like Lidstrom and Harvey seem to continue to dominate later in their careers than star forwards as well so it pretty much evens itself out. The end product is what really matters IMO.

WWII got in the way.

 

[danincanada]

WWII got in the way.

How so? The NHL was still active during that time and Harvey was playing in the minor leagues for 3 years before playing for the Canadiens. I read that he served in the war in 1944 but according to hockey reference that was before he started playing in the QSHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey

How so? The NHL was still active during that time and Harvey was playing in the minor leagues for 3 years before playing for the Canadiens. I read that he served in the war in 1944 but according to hockey reference that was before he started playing in the QSHL.

Doug Harvey, navy from 1942-43 on with some junior, couple senior games thru the end of the war.

Bounce back time from war experiences took a while.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Maybe it's because I'm a huge Eastern Conference fan, but here's the crux of my concern in placing Lidstrom so high:

Most great players (top-10 especially) are referenced as such throughout their careers. Look at someone like Crosby, who at 23 is already being referred to as one of the greatest ever. It could be my lack of knowledge on the Western Conference, but did this ever happen to Lidstrom? In my recollection it has taken 7 Norris' and only in the last few years have I become aware of this type of "second greatest defenceman ever" debate.

To me, your play should indicate this standing far earlier than when you win your seventh Norris.

Again, maybe this was the case and I just wasn't privy to the chatter but could anyone address this thought.

I think you see it today, where Suter and Enstrom, two defensively sound, great all-around defensemen are very much over-shadowed by their hard-hitting, goal-scoring linemates. I think these two will start to get more deserved attention over the years, but it takes a while for non-physical defensemen to get noticed as they are not showing up in the highlight reels.