View Single Post
11-18-2012, 11:02 AM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,553
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Hot down the stretch? Just a bit of an understatement.
Bure wasn't just the best rookie in the last half of the season, he was one of the best players in the last half of the season.
You can whine about this all you want, again, but Bure tore it up bigtime. Bure stole it from him fair and square.
I understand human nature but if Bure started the way he finished and had the same stats but faded down the stretch the voters would have treated him differently.

I just happen to think that guys should be judged on everything they do and Bure didn't do anything for 19 games that season and what he did do wasn't enough to beat Lidstrom IMO but then again the voters aren't really factoring in defensive play either.

If you want to call my observation and opinions whining fair enough it does let everyone know the type of guy you are.

First off, I think you give too little credit for Harvey's influence on the game. He was an innovator and after everything you have said here it's still very close but Harvey takes it with the innovator card IMO.
Wait Hod Stuart was an innovator or was it Shore or Clancy or Orr?

Yes you are right i give very little credit for being 1st chronologically because it really doesn't mean all that much in the big scheme of things.

It certainly means a heck of a lot less than the level of competition that the innovators played in compared to the fully integrated NHL that is being ignored or downplayed by many here.

Second, it's not about Orr and it never will be about Orr. Bobby is #1 and that's not going to change.
No people have a mystic and perception of the legend that doesn't look at the low quality of play in the NHL during that time and more people seem to be peak and prime oriented than career oriented as well. Maybe this will change over time but who knows.

Third, even if Lidstrom were ahead of Harvey, then Bourque will also be ahead of Harvey because Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom.

As funny as it sounds, you have actually made a better argument for Lidstrom over Harvey than you have ever even remotely been able to do for Lidstrom over Bourque.
Everyone knows your feeling on Bourque so I won't even bother going there again.

BUT, like I said, Harvey's innovating the game is what keeps him ahead of both of them IMO.

Also, you compare Lidstrom and Harvey's offense and defense but you left out puck possession and full ice game control which Harvey walks away with easily.
Even without looking at the differences in the level of competition it's pretty darn clear that Lidstrom has the better peak, prime, carrier and is a monster in the playoffs.

Can you demonstrate how Harveys "puck possession and full ice game control" adds to what he did statistically?

Why does it take until age 27 to make an all star team for him then, did he not have it before?

In the years 51,52,53 Kelly is the unanimous top choice for Dmen in all star voting and in 54 beats Harvey by a different voting system for the Norris

Kelly 162
Harvey 57
Gadsby 38
Tim Horton 26

In 55 when Harvey was 30 he starts his Norris run, in part I think to Voters treating Kelly as a forward or did Kelly just drop off the map?

Your focus on non measurable things, while we are talking about those we have Lidstroms defensive prowess from 92-12, distracts us from what we can measure and what I ahve shown in my posts.

Lidstrom is clearly ahead of Harvey all time and that's before we even factor in the level of competition as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote