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

[WingsFan95]

It's Lids to me.

Harvey played in the 6 team era, with, no offense, a lot less media attention and player interest in the NHL.

Also the Habs were stacked.

People who saw teams play during that era will tell you the league was basically setup like this:

Montreal Canadiens run a monopoly on players and profit.
Leafs are 2nd.

In the United States the Rangers and Wings also have a very good loyal following. Blackhawks and Bruins chug along but are often stressed for contention, Hull and Mikita provide highlight but the team is rarely a serious Cup contender.

Then you have the expansion in 67 which creates a lot of bad teams, along with that the Bruins suffer financially and recover due to Orr and the team contending.

Since then there's only a handful or at most 10 poor/non-contending teams every year. The talent and financial monopoly is controlled by roughly 10 or so teams.

The media is much bigger and there are numerous prospects clamoring to play for millions in the NHL.

This is why my list goes like so:

1. Orr
2. Lidstrom
3. Bourque
4. Potvin
5. Harvey


Shore should be remembered but he's just not in the same books, a whole different story, like Conacher it's just not proper to compare or list them with players that play in a whole different universe.

I dare say it's improper to compare 06 era players to 80s and beyond.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A lot less media attention in... Montreal in the late 50s?????

 

[Rhiessan71]

It's Lids to me.

Harvey played in the 6 team era, with, no offense, a lot less media attention and player interest in the NHL.

Also the Habs were stacked.

People who saw teams play during that era will tell you the league was basically setup like this:

Montreal Canadiens run a monopoly on players and profit.
Leafs are 2nd.

In the United States the Rangers and Wings also have a very good loyal following. Blackhawks and Bruins chug along but are often stressed for contention, Hull and Mikita provide highlight but the team is rarely a serious Cup contender.

Then you have the expansion in 67 which creates a lot of bad teams, along with that the Bruins suffer financially and recover due to Orr and the team contending.

Since then there's only a handful or at most 10 poor/non-contending teams every year. The talent and financial monopoly is controlled by roughly 10 or so teams.

The media is much bigger and there are numerous prospects clamoring to play for millions in the NHL.

This is why my list goes like so:

1. Orr
2. Lidstrom
3. Bourque
4. Potvin
5. Harvey


Shore should be remembered but he's just not in the same books, a whole different story, like Conacher it's just not proper to compare or list them with players that play in a whole different universe.

I dare say it's improper to compare 06 era players to 80s and beyond.

Your interpretation of History is....ummmm....interesting.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'll ask again, because I think it's a significant point in the discussion.

Can the people claiming bias against defensemen in Hart voting do the rest of us a favor and name the specific years between Orr and now that a defenseman was in your personal Top 3 at the end of the year?

In my opinion, Lidstrom has never been nominated for a Hart Trophy because he has never had an individual season worthy of it. Don't get me wrong: He had a good peak year in 2006, but Thornton, Jagr, and Kiprusoff were better that year than Lidstrom at his best.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll ask again, because I think it's a significant point in the discussion.



In my opinion, Lidstrom has never been nominated for a Hart Trophy because he has never had an individual season worthy of it. Don't get me wrong: He had a good peak year in 2006, but Thornton, Jagr, and Kiprusoff were better that year than Lidstrom at his best.

it's not quite what you're asking, but if prime Gretzky were playing in 2006, I'm 100 % sure that the finalists would have been Gretzky, Kiprusoff, and Lidstrom, because Gretzky would have blown the other forwards away.

Even if peak Gretzky were still fresh in mind (like he was in 1990), I think it's highly likely Lidstrom would have finished higher than Jagr or Thornton. At minimum, he would have been a lot closer

 

[Canadiens1958]

Assuming..................

it's not quite what you're asking, but if prime Gretzky were playing in 2006, I'm 100 % sure that the finalists would have been Gretzky, Kiprusoff, and Lidstrom, because Gretzky would have blown the other forwards away.

Even if peak Gretzky were still fresh in mind (like he was in 1990), I think it's highly likely Lidstrom would have finished higher than Jagr or Thornton. At minimum, he would have been a lot closer

Based on a hypothetical assumption that has little if any historical support.

From 1991-92 onwards Nicklas Lidstrom played against an aging, post injury Wayne Gretzky.Played is the operative word since no one has ever mentioned that Lidstrom was more than a normal dman against Gretzky unlike the accolades that Lidstrom gets for playing against Lindros.

2006 prime Gretzky against Lidstrom projected to Hart voting. We saw well past prime Gretzky in 1996 St.Louis on a disjointed team hold his own against Lidstrom and the Wings with three excellent defensive centers available to face him. Prime Gretzky in 2006 assumes that his talent does not expose Kiprusoff as happened over time and does not show the league how to play against Lidstrom. Gretzky, in his prime with the Oilers did well against the leading dmen of his era, neutralizing their strengths.

 

[danincanada]

Orr

Harvey
Bourque
Lidstrom
Potvin
Shore


Lidstrom, is without a doubt, a Great player but IMO he is only the 4th best of all time and that is by no means even close to an insult.
Anyone who gets upset or takes it an insult is quite frankly an idiot IMO.

You're right, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

It's not that Lidstrom backers are "insulted", it's just that this is a message board where people bicker and debate and give their points for their opinions. You shouldn't be insulted if I say this either:

Both Harvey and Lidstrom were considered the best dmen of their era, each winning 7 Norris', multiple Cups, etc. When compared to each other versus their own peers (the only way we can compare them) it's very difficult to separate the two. When you look at the bigger picture though, Lidstrom played at a time when the NHL could draw the best players from all over the world, at a time when hockey had grown in countries other than Canada, whereas in Harvey's NHL the league really only drew from Canada when that one country had far far less people to draw from than now. This should logically give Lidstrom at least a small edge over Harvey if you consider everything else equal. In reality, we shouldn't even be comparing the two because the leagues they played in were so different. Since everyone loves making these lists though, I can't see how someone can give Harvey the benefit of a doubt when we know what the NHL consisted of back in his playing days. No Europeans, no Russians, hardly any Americans, a much smaller Canadian population to pick from = much less talent in the league.

I would like all of those older Canadian posters to consider how they would feel if there were some superstar defenseman in Sweden during the 50's who dominated over there like Harvey did the NHL and Swedish posters acted as if dominating a primarily all-Swedish league was equal to dominating the NHL now. I realize the NHL was supposed to be the best league in the world in the 50's and the Swedish league wasn't, but the point is the NHL of the 50's is not equal to the NHL of today. It simply isn't.

I've argued the Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate many times. I take Lidstrom because he has more personal hardware and was a huge part of more team accomplishments and I believe he was a better defensive player than Bourque. It's obviously close though.

 

[Epsilon]

EDIT: wrong thread.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You're right, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

It's not that Lidstrom backers are "insulted", it's just that this is a message board where people bicker and debate and give their points for their opinions. You shouldn't be insulted if I say this either:

Both Harvey and Lidstrom were considered the best dmen of their era, each winning 7 Norris', multiple Cups, etc. When compared to each other versus their own peers (the only way we can compare them) it's very difficult to separate the two. When you look at the bigger picture though, Lidstrom played at a time when the NHL could draw the best players from all over the world, at a time when hockey had grown in countries other than Canada, whereas in Harvey's NHL the league really only drew from Canada when that one country had far far less people to draw from than now. This should logically give Lidstrom at least a small edge over Harvey if you consider everything else equal. In reality, we shouldn't even be comparing the two because the leagues they played in were so different. Since everyone loves making these lists though, I can't see how someone can give Harvey the benefit of a doubt when we know what the NHL consisted of back in his playing days. No Europeans, no Russians, hardly any Americans, a much smaller Canadian population to pick from = much less talent in the league.

I would like all of those older Canadian posters to consider how they would feel if there were some superstar defenseman in Sweden during the 50's who dominated over there like Harvey did the NHL and Swedish posters acted as if dominating a primarily all-Swedish league was equal to dominating the NHL now. I realize the NHL was supposed to be the best league in the world in the 50's and the Swedish league wasn't, but the point is the NHL of the 50's is not equal to the NHL of today. It simply isn't.

I've argued the Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate many times. I take Lidstrom because he has more personal hardware and was a huge part of more team accomplishments and I believe he was a better defensive player than Bourque. It's obviously close though.

Hey, it's a valid argument if you believe that Lidstrom is actually the best D-man of his era and he prolly is but only after Bourque, Coffey and Chelios finally started declining around 95-97 IMO.

Then there's the obvious rub, where are Lidstrom's Chelios and Coffey. Where's Lidstrom's consistent top flight competition year in and year out?
When all is said and done, how many of Lidstrom's direct competitors will even crack the top 20 D-men of all-time?
By comparison, Bourque's list not only has multiple entries in the Top 20 but the Top 10 all-time as well. Not to mention garnering large Hart voting shares against the likes of Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier. That's damned impressive in its own right period.
If Chelios and Coffey had of been as inconsistent and/or as injury prone as Chara, Pronger, Green and Niedermayer then Bourque could easily be walking around with closer to 10 Norris'.
Bourque had no cushion. If Ray had even a slightly off year, he would lose the Norris. That is not even close to the case with Lidstrom, his cushion is/was both large and heavily fluffed.

Sorry but these are some pretty hard and compelling facts to overcome for me to rank Lidstrom above Bourque at the end of the day.
Plus, I have personally seen both Bourque and Lidstrom play from start to finish and have no doubt in my mind which of them was the more impressive player.

As for Harvey...pretty hard to go against the man that pioneered how the position is still played 50 years later.

Just my opinion though and I'm not going to get upset with anyone that wants to put Lidstrom #3 or #2, that's not an insult to me.
Now if someone wants to try ranking him #1....THEN it's game on because now we would be entering insult territory

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

A lot less media attention in... Montreal in the late 50s?????

Really, how much more attention could a team ever get?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opinions vs Myths

You're right, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

It's not that Lidstrom backers are "insulted", it's just that this is a message board where people bicker and debate and give their points for their opinions. You shouldn't be insulted if I say this either:

Both Harvey and Lidstrom were considered the best dmen of their era, each winning 7 Norris', multiple Cups, etc. When compared to each other versus their own peers (the only way we can compare them) it's very difficult to separate the two. When you look at the bigger picture though, Lidstrom played at a time when the NHL could draw the best players from all over the world, at a time when hockey had grown in countries other than Canada, whereas in Harvey's NHL the league really only drew from Canada when that one country had far far less people to draw from than now. This should logically give Lidstrom at least a small edge over Harvey if you consider everything else equal. In reality, we shouldn't even be comparing the two because the leagues they played in were so different. Since everyone loves making these lists though, I can't see how someone can give Harvey the benefit of a doubt when we know what the NHL consisted of back in his playing days. No Europeans, no Russians, hardly any Americans, a much smaller Canadian population to pick from = much less talent in the league.

I would like all of those older Canadian posters to consider how they would feel if there were some superstar defenseman in Sweden during the 50's who dominated over there like Harvey did the NHL and Swedish posters acted as if dominating a primarily all-Swedish league was equal to dominating the NHL now. I realize the NHL was supposed to be the best league in the world in the 50's and the Swedish league wasn't, but the point is the NHL of the 50's is not equal to the NHL of today. It simply isn't.

I've argued the Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate many times. I take Lidstrom because he has more personal hardware and was a huge part of more team accomplishments and I believe he was a better defensive player than Bourque. It's obviously close though.

Opinions are fine but creating myths are a different matter all together.

The 1950's sport realities. The world featured other sports besides hockey. None of the other sports were truly international.
Soccer was mainly European with SA starting to make in roads with Pele. The NBA was American with recreational level basketball the norm throughout the rest of the world. Pro boxing was mainly North American. Pro football was North American and while baseball was starting to spread to central, south America and Asia.

Today the various sports above have reached varying levels of international integration. Dirk Nowitzki, Wladimir Klitschko, Icharo Suzuki, just a small list of great international talents in their chosen sports.

All the sports, not only hockey are subject to the various changes that the world has undergone since the 1950's.Political changes, population growth, medical, nutritional, technological, training/coaching advances, etc. all influence performance.

In all the sports there are comparables across eras from the origins to the present but they are orderly, reality based without creating comic book heroes to support an opinion.

In baseball the fifties featured three great outfielders Willie Mays, Duke Snider, Mickey Mantle playing in NYC, plus others like Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Roberto Clemente comparables to Ichiro Suzuki maybe be attempted BUT such comparables do not include creating some 1950's mythical comic book hero, outfielder playing in Japan.

Simple reality about the fifties and sixties European hockey players, illustrated rather clearly when looking at Nikolai Sologubov vs Canadian semi-pro teams or brief clips vs the Whitby Dunlops is that they were leagues below NHL talent levels.So this comic book hero argument of yours is a massive fail.

Back to the topic at hand. Harvey vs Lidstrom. Setting aside the individual and team honours as well as the quality of contemporary competition at the position, there is another consideration that has to be looked at.

All the great, elite athletes bring skills and attribute's to the game that are replicated and taught from the moment they appear on the scene to long after their passing. True for Harvey, dictating pace, transition game from any spot in the defensive zone, defending passing lanes, spin move and a few other nuances. Lidstrom does not have such a portfolio. He executes most skills at a very high level with longevity but no one can claim that he has changed the way the position is played.

 

[danincanada]

Opinions are fine but creating myths are a different matter all together.

The 1950's sport realities. The world featured other sports besides hockey. None of the other sports were truly international.
Soccer was mainly European with SA starting to make in roads with Pele. The NBA was American with recreational level basketball the norm throughout the rest of the world. Pro boxing was mainly North American. Pro football was North American and while baseball was starting to spread to central, south America and Asia.

Today the various sports above have reached varying levels of international integration. Dirk Nowitzki, Wladimir Klitschko, Icharo Suzuki, just a small list of great international talents in their chosen sports.

All the sports, not only hockey are subject to the various changes that the world has undergone since the 1950's.Political changes, population growth, medical, nutritional, technological, training/coaching advances, etc. all influence performance.

In all the sports there are comparables across eras from the origins to the present but they are orderly, reality based without creating comic book heroes to support an opinion.

In baseball the fifties featured three great outfielders Willie Mays, Duke Snider, Mickey Mantle playing in NYC, plus others like Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Roberto Clemente comparables to Ichiro Suzuki maybe be attempted BUT such comparables do not include creating some 1950's mythical comic book hero, outfielder playing in Japan.

Simple reality about the fifties and sixties European hockey players, illustrated rather clearly when looking at Nikolai Sologubov vs Canadian semi-pro teams or brief clips vs the Whitby Dunlops is that they were leagues below NHL talent levels.So this comic book hero argument of yours is a massive fail.

Back to the topic at hand. Harvey vs Lidstrom. Setting aside the individual and team honours as well as the quality of contemporary competition at the position, there is another consideration that has to be looked at.

All the great, elite athletes bring skills and attribute's to the game that are replicated and taught from the moment they appear on the scene to long after their passing. True for Harvey, dictating pace, transition game from any spot in the defensive zone, defending passing lanes, spin move and a few other nuances. Lidstrom does not have such a portfolio. He executes most skills at a very high level with longevity but no one can claim that he has changed the way the position is played.

Myths? Comic book characters? I just asked you to look at something hypothetically. I think you're avoiding the obvious fact that the NHL has a much larger talent pool to pick from now with this tangent. Lidstrom played in the International NHL and Harvey in the Canadian NHL.

To say Lidstrom won't change how the position is played or have a huge influence on future defenseman is quite a claim to make right now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Based on a hypothetical assumption that has little if any historical support.

From 1991-92 onwards Nicklas Lidstrom played against an aging, post injury Wayne Gretzky.Played is the operative word since no one has ever mentioned that Lidstrom was more than a normal dman against Gretzky unlike the accolades that Lidstrom gets for playing against Lindros.

2006 prime Gretzky against Lidstrom projected to Hart voting. We saw well past prime Gretzky in 1996 St.Louis on a disjointed team hold his own against Lidstrom and the Wings with three excellent defensive centers available to face him. Prime Gretzky in 2006 assumes that his talent does not expose Kiprusoff as happened over time and does not show the league how to play against Lidstrom. Gretzky, in his prime with the Oilers did well against the leading dmen of his era, neutralizing their strengths.

The historical support is how well defensemen (and goaltenders) did in Hart voting in the 1980s compared to anytime afterwards. Or do you really think that Rod Langway had better seasons than Lidstrom ever did?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're right, we're all entitled to our own opinions.

It's not that Lidstrom backers are "insulted", it's just that this is a message board where people bicker and debate and give their points for their opinions. You shouldn't be insulted if I say this either:

Both Harvey and Lidstrom were considered the best dmen of their era, each winning 7 Norris', multiple Cups, etc. When compared to each other versus their own peers (the only way we can compare them) it's very difficult to separate the two. When you look at the bigger picture though, Lidstrom played at a time when the NHL could draw the best players from all over the world, at a time when hockey had grown in countries other than Canada, whereas in Harvey's NHL the league really only drew from Canada when that one country had far far less people to draw from than now. This should logically give Lidstrom at least a small edge over Harvey if you consider everything else equal. In reality, we shouldn't even be comparing the two because the leagues they played in were so different. Since everyone loves making these lists though, I can't see how someone can give Harvey the benefit of a doubt when we know what the NHL consisted of back in his playing days. No Europeans, no Russians, hardly any Americans, a much smaller Canadian population to pick from = much less talent in the league.

I would like all of those older Canadian posters to consider how they would feel if there were some superstar defenseman in Sweden during the 50's who dominated over there like Harvey did the NHL and Swedish posters acted as if dominating a primarily all-Swedish league was equal to dominating the NHL now. I realize the NHL was supposed to be the best league in the world in the 50's and the Swedish league wasn't, but the point is the NHL of the 50's is not equal to the NHL of today. It simply isn't.

I've argued the Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate many times. I take Lidstrom because he has more personal hardware and was a huge part of more team accomplishments and I believe he was a better defensive player than Bourque. It's obviously close though.

Harvey was more dominant over his peers than Lidstrom. He won every single Norris trophy in his prime, except when injured. Lidstrom has had a couple of prime years being beaten out and a couple of trophy wins that were close. Lidstrom has been the dominant defenseman for the last decade+ but Harvey dominated his peers more.

Lidstrom has absolutely faced a much deeper pool of talent than Harvey did. But what about competition at the top?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hypotheticals

Myths? Comic book characters? I just asked you to look at something hypothetically. I think you're avoiding the obvious fact that the NHL has a much larger talent pool to pick from now with this tangent. Lidstrom played in the International NHL and Harvey in the Canadian NHL.

To say Lidstrom won't change how the position is played or have a huge influence on future defenseman is quite a claim to make right now.

Hypotheticals are necessary only if claims cannot be supported by reality.Larger talent pool does not translate into better as evidenced by the gap between Lidstrom and his contemporaries.

Lidstrom has not influenced a change on how defensemen play or are taught during his career so expecting changes attributable strictly to Lidstrom post career is again one of your hypotheticals. Reality is that with a bigger and growing talent pool Sweden has not produced a Lidstrom light nor has anyone else. Reason why is simple. There is nothing new or special or distinct like there was with Shore, Harvey, Orr, Bourque, Coffey, Potvin. All that Lidstrom brings is better execution relative to his era and contemporaries. Even the finesse approach was around during Doug Harvey's time - Quackenbush, Kelly J.C. Tremblay

 

[WingsFan95]

Coffey has been my favorite player since I got my first North American hockey card of him after he won the Norris in 95.

When talking DEFENSEmen I cannot hold him to be anything but bottom Top 10.

Even still after my Top 5 I'd say I put guys like Larry Robinson, Chelios and Leetch over Coffey.

Coffey was a weak defenseman who was great offensively, he was a weapon because him on the ice meant you basically had 4 forwards, I know this too well. When he lost his speed he wasn't as effective, my Wings reamed him good in that 97 Cup Final, even if he was old, you don't see Leetch or Chelios be that bad.\

As for Lidstrom's competition, I think Niedermayer, Leetch, Blake and Pronger are all fine Hall of Fame defensemen. Especially Scott.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hypotheticals are necessary only if claims cannot be supported by reality.Larger talent pool does not translate into better as evidenced by the gap between Lidstrom and his contemporaries.

Lidstrom has not influenced a change on how defensemen play or are taught during his career so expecting changes attributable strictly to Lidstrom post career is again one of your hypotheticals. Reality is that with a bigger and growing talent pool Sweden has not produced a Lidstrom light nor has anyone else. Reason why is simple. There is nothing new or special or distinct like there was with Shore, Harvey, Orr, Bourque, Coffey, Potvin. All that Lidstrom brings is better execution relative to his era and contemporaries. Even the finesse approach was around during Doug Harvey's time - Quackenbush, Kelly J.C. Tremblay

if Lidstrom's approach doesn't change how defensemen play, it certainly changes how they are perceived. Prior to Lidstrom, non-physical defensemen were viewed as liabilities defensively. Even Lidstrom himself was viewed as a primarily offensive guy well into his career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Coffey has been my favorite player since I got my first North American hockey card of him after he won the Norris in 95.

When talking DEFENSEmen I cannot hold him to be anything but bottom Top 10.

Even still after my Top 5 I'd say I put guys like Larry Robinson, Chelios and Leetch over Coffey.

Coffey was a weak defenseman who was great offensively, he was a weapon because him on the ice meant you basically had 4 forwards, I know this too well. When he lost his speed he wasn't as effective, my Wings reamed him good in that 97 Cup Final, even if he was old, you don't see Leetch or Chelios be that bad.\

As for Lidstrom's competition, I think Niedermayer, Leetch, Blake and Pronger are all fine Hall of Fame defensemen. Especially Scott.

Scott Niedermayer provided competition for only 4 seasons, but I would agree that he was quite strong during this time.

Leetch, on the other hand, didn't really compete with Lidstrom. His defense went in the toilet before Lidstrom started winning his trophies

 

[Canadiens1958]

Put to the Test

The historical support is how well defensemen (and goaltendera) did in Hart voting in the 1980s compared to anytime afterwards. Or do you really think that Rod Langway had better seasons than Lidstrom ever did?

In the 1980's Rod Langway's game was constantly tested on many levels. Just a few examples, playing the Oilers he would have to adjust from shift to shift, defending against Gretzky's elite finesse game, Messier's power game plus Coffey's speed game from the defense. Lidstrom has never had to face a single opponent with all these attributes at one time.

Throw in the various pressure forechecking teams, the positional teams,teams generating offense from the back end/transition,trap or no trap at a very basic level, the teams like the Nordiques with a European style, the introduction and move to the short shift game which impacted Langways advantages in stamina and the ability to work a long shift exposing the opponents weaknesses in endurance.

Langway was put to a more varied and intensive test on a regular basis.

Lidstrom, especially starting with the short strike season - 1994-95 has played against teams that are images of each other with differences in execution and application of strategies and skills. Every team employs elements of what is known as the trap, every team has dmen that are reasonable adept offensively with results being a function of their supporting cast - your Letang observation testify to this,some are more physical than others. Offense is not overly varied. Teams throw in elements like the east/west game if they have capable players, if it offers a strategic advantage. Pittsburgh with Lemieux and Jagr never fully optimized the talent advantage they had on offense. During the vast majprity of Lidstroms career only two attributes mattered beyond the basics of skating and conditioning.Execution and playing the game not to lose.The two Lidstrom strengths.

 

[unknown33]

The 1950's sport realities. The world featured other sports besides hockey. None of the other sports were truly international.
Soccer was mainly European with SA starting to make in roads with Pele.

Do you mean SA not being on par with Europe or not many SA players playing in foreign European leagues?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Liabilities?

if Lidstrom's approach doesn't change how defensemen play, it certainly changes how they are perceived. Prior to Lidstrom, non-physical defensemen were viewed as liabilities defensively. Even Lidstrom himself was viewed as a primarily offensive guy well into his career.

Kelly and Quackenbush were liabilities.???? J.C. Tremblay, yes which goes a ways to explaining why he is not in the HHOF.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Either

Do you mean SA not being on par with Europe or not many SA players playing in foreign European leagues?

Either. Simply asking the question supports my point.

 

[steve141]

Lidstrom has not influenced a change on how defensemen play or are taught during his career so expecting changes attributable strictly to Lidstrom post career is again one of your hypotheticals. Reality is that with a bigger and growing talent pool Sweden has not produced a Lidstrom light nor has anyone else. Reason why is simple. There is nothing new or special or distinct like there was with Shore, Harvey, Orr, Bourque, Coffey, Potvin. All that Lidstrom brings is better execution relative to his era and contemporaries. Even the finesse approach was around during Doug Harvey's time - Quackenbush, Kelly J.C. Tremblay

I think Harvey deserved a lot of credit for defining a playing style that is still the gold standard for defencemen today. I've said earlier that I think his influence on the way the game is played today is bigger than Orr's. So yeah, Harvey was had more influence on the position than Lidstrom.

On the other hand, you fail to mention what was so "new or special or distinct" about Bourque, Coffey and Potvin compared to Lidstrom. It's not like Paul Coffey invented then end-to-end rush, he was just extremely good at it. They were all heavily influenced by Orr, while Lidstrom plays a more conservative style like Harvey.

It's fair to debate who is more influential, but saying that Lidstrom does not have a distinct style of play is just baffling. Just about every article about Lidstrom mentions his clean, poke-checking style. No, he didn't invent that style, but he played it better than anybody else. In my view he has one of the more distinct playing styles of his generation.

 

[unknown33]

Either. Simply asking the question supports my point.

Well the first one is wrong, the second one is true.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Kelly and Quackenbush were liabilities.???? J.C. Tremblay, yes which goes a ways to explaining why he is not in the HHOF.

Only a 40 or so year gap between Red Kelly's last game as a defenseman an Lidstrom's first Norris.

By the 1980s and 90s, physical play was considered a necessary component of a defenseman's defensive game. Lidstrom was the guy who proved it didn't have to be.