Nicklas Lidstrom Sportsman of the Year 2008

[12Newf 0]

I just came across this article and I found it interesting albeit very unlikely. Obviously Michael Phelps seems like a pretty easy choice to win this award but I felt it at least might raise a debate on LGW since we're all pretty big homers.

Anyone else you think might be a favourite for the Sportsman of the Year Honour? Tiger Woods? (although personally I couldnt care less about him limping at the US Open since I am a hockey fan) Maybe Usain Bolt?

SI article

[Opie 308]

What makes Lidstrom so Sportsman-like is, well, his sportsmanship: his humility, his professionalism. He is intuitive on the ice and equally so in the locker room. Earlier this year Babcock told me that he had never coached player this good. "In what way?" I asked. Replied Babcock: "In any way you can think of."

Nuff said!

[T.Low 1,011]

I never tire of hearing how great Nick Lidstrom is. Thanks for posting.

[DyingAlive 27]

Would be a sweet if Nick got the Sportsman of the Year honor. However, doubtful. Considering, the NHL rarely gets an article longer than 3 pages, or even a cover, let alone sportsman of the year honors.

[GoalieManPat 1,007]

Im a Nick fan as much as anyone but come on. The sportsman of the year this year is obviously Phelps. What he did was historic and most importantly raised his sport which really nobody cared a bout to being the top headline and most watched part of the Olympics.

[Drake_Marcus 890]

Im a Nick fan as much as anyone but come on. The sportsman of the year this year is obviously Phelps. What he did was historic and most importantly raised his sport which really nobody cared a bout to being the top headline and most watched part of the Olympics.

What he did was certainly not unprecidented, however. Another American swimmer did it first and he did it with a BAD ASS MUSTACHE!

[Dabura 12,207]

What he did was certainly not unprecidented, however. Another American swimmer did it first and he did it with a BAD ASS MUSTACHE!

And it was harder to do back then. No sleek hair caps, no ultra-comprehensive physical therapy (and I've worked with his PT, so I know) -- just a badass 'stache.

Swimming has seen someone like Phelps before. Nick Lidstrom is, I think, somewhat unique to his respective sport; I'm not sure the NHL has seen anyone else with a package like his. You wonder where it comes from, how anyone could have his vision, his knowledge of the game, his poise -- everything he does seems rooted in some sort of mystical Jedi training that mere mortals like us know nothing about. Michael Phelps is a tremendous, tremendous athlete, but you know his story, what he's all about, how he got to where he is. I think the seemingly inexplicable nature of Nick's talent helps give him the edge.

Also helping him is the fact that he's an unbelievably, ridiculously amazing person. Not that Phelps isn't swell and all, but Nick is pure class: smart, sophisticated, well-spoken, humble. I remember asking him for an autograph in the parking lot before Game 2 of the '97 finals. I was young, didn't know who he was. Just knew that he was a Wing. He smiled and said, "You don't want mine; I'm a nobody. But I can tell you where Stevie is!"

Nick Lidstrom = Win

[egroen 384]

And it was harder to do back then. No sleek hair caps, no ultra-comprehensive physical therapy (and I've worked with his PT, so I know) -- just a badass 'stache.

Swimming has seen someone like Phelps before. Nick Lidstrom is, I think, somewhat unique to his respective sport; I'm not sure the NHL has seen anyone else with a package like his. You wonder where it comes from, how anyone could have his vision, his knowledge of the game, his poise -- everything he does seems rooted in some sort of mystical Jedi training that mere mortals like us know nothing about. Michael Phelps is a tremendous, tremendous athlete, but you know his story, what he's all about, how he got to where he is. I think the seemingly inexplicable nature of Nick's talent helps give him the edge.

Also helping him is the fact that he's an unbelievably, ridiculously amazing person. Not that Phelps isn't swell and all, but Nick is pure class: smart, sophisticated, well-spoken, humble. I remember asking him for an autograph in the parking lot before Game 2 of the '97 finals. I was young, didn't know who he was. Just knew that he was a Wing. He smiled and said, "You don't want mine; I'm a nobody. But I can tell you where Stevie is!"

Nick Lidstrom = Win

Spitz never did what Phelps did, and Spitz is the only one even close to Phelps' level (8 vs. 7 gold this year and a total of 14 olympic gold medals to 9).

If this wasn't an olympic year and we did not just have the greatest olympic performance ever, than I would love to see Lidstrom win... but he does not deserve it this year.

Regarding the article:

... which has defined him, without argument, as the best NHL defenseman since Bobby Orr.

There are plenty who think Bourque is still better than Lidstrom, and they definitely have a good argument.

Edited November 20, 2008 by egroen

[Opie 308]

Regarding the article:

There are plenty who think Bourque is still better than Lidstrom, and they definitely have a good argument.

And to those people I would ask one simple question:

How many cups did Bourque lead his team to?

I have the utmost respect for Bourque, he was an Yzerman like guy in Boston, it sucked he had to leave to win his cup, but he never led a team to the cup, he rode along with Sakic and Forsberg but he was not the leader. Lids accomplishing that last year, plus the Norris trophies and the other things he has done, put him on top of Bourque to me.

But then again I see it as Orr, Harvey Lids, Robinson, Bourque, and that is no slight to Bourque, I have the utmost respect for what he accomplished.

[egroen 384]

And to those people I would ask one simple question:

How many cups did Bourque lead his team to?

I have the utmost respect for Bourque, he was an Yzerman like guy in Boston, it sucked he had to leave to win his cup, but he never led a team to the cup, he rode along with Sakic and Forsberg but he was not the leader. Lids accomplishing that last year, plus the Norris trophies and the other things he has done, put him on top of Bourque to me.

But then again I see it as Orr, Harvey Lids, Robinson, Bourque, and that is no slight to Bourque, I have the utmost respect for what he accomplished.

I've never been too fond of the end-all be-all argument of Stanley Cups. Is Henri Richard better than Rocket because Henri won more Cups? Is Fuhr or even Osgood better than Hasek?

It's tough to argue against 13 first team and 6 second team all star selections.

[Opie 308]

I've never been too fond of the end-all be-all argument of Stanley Cups. Is Henri Richard better than Rocket because Henri won more Cups? Is Fuhr or even Osgood better than Hasek?

It's tough to argue against 13 first team and 6 second team all star selections.

That is why my point was LED the team to a cup, Lids and Bourque are both really high end D-men of all time, to me leading a team to a cup puts lids ahead of Bourque, your comparisons the players are not in the same level of play, Henri was not Rocket nor was he even in the neighborhood. Stanley cups aren't the end all of who is better, but if it is close it can be a deciding factor.

I know it is a popular way to argue on a discussion forum but because I say leading a team to a cup makes Lids better than Bourque doesn't mean I think it is a universal standard of comparison. In my opinion Hasek is so far ahead of Ozzie that even if Ozzie has a lead in the cup category it doesn't make him better. Why people insist on using a comparison across the board to prove one example wrong is beyond me. Because I think Lids leading a team to a cup puts him ahead of Bourque means yeah honestly I think Sammy and his one cup are better than Cam Neely and his no cups. Come on people a little common sense is not a lot to ask.

[b.shanafan14 733]

"Lidstrom fits comfortably into an old saw: Two thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Nicklas Lidstrom."

haha great stuff. I'm sure Phelps is a lock and NHL being the way it is these days as far as lack of respect from sports media, Lidstrom wouldn't really stand a chance either way, but its great to see the nod. Better him than Sid

[Frozen-Man 144]

That is why my point was LED the team to a cup, Lids and Bourque are both really high end D-men of all time, to me leading a team to a cup puts lids ahead of Bourque, your comparisons the players are not in the same level of play, Henri was not Rocket nor was he even in the neighborhood. Stanley cups aren't the end all of who is better, but if it is close it can be a deciding factor.

I know it is a popular way to argue on a discussion forum but because I say leading a team to a cup makes Lids better than Bourque doesn't mean I think it is a universal standard of comparison. In my opinion Hasek is so far ahead of Ozzie that even if Ozzie has a lead in the cup category it doesn't make him better. Why people insist on using a comparison across the board to prove one example wrong is beyond me. Because I think Lids leading a team to a cup puts him ahead of Bourque means yeah honestly I think Sammy and his one cup are better than Cam Neely and his no cups. Come on people a little common sense is not a lot to ask.

I don't think that your comparison of who has more Cups works with Bourque and Lids either though. Yes Nick led the team and yes he was and is incredible but he led a team with Datz, Z, and a host of other wonderful players. If you take Nick off this team they probably don't win the Cup last year but would still have been one of the best teams the converse is not true (in my opinion) if you take Bourque off of those Boston teams. For example Barry Sanders never got the numbers or championships that Emmit Smith did but he was never behind an offensive line like the Cowboys had (or their many other offensive and defensive threats), it had little to do with the players and everything to do with the team (as a whole) that they were on.

[egroen 384]

That is why my point was LED the team to a cup, Lids and Bourque are both really high end D-men of all time, to me leading a team to a cup puts lids ahead of Bourque, your comparisons the players are not in the same level of play, Henri was not Rocket nor was he even in the neighborhood. Stanley cups aren't the end all of who is better, but if it is close it can be a deciding factor.

I know it is a popular way to argue on a discussion forum but because I say leading a team to a cup makes Lids better than Bourque doesn't mean I think it is a universal standard of comparison. In my opinion Hasek is so far ahead of Ozzie that even if Ozzie has a lead in the cup category it doesn't make him better. Why people insist on using a comparison across the board to prove one example wrong is beyond me. Because I think Lids leading a team to a cup puts him ahead of Bourque means yeah honestly I think Sammy and his one cup are better than Cam Neely and his no cups. Come on people a little common sense is not a lot to ask.

Ok, Messier is not better than Lemiuex because he led his teams to more Cups? More fair comparison?

Bourque led the Avs defense in points his final year, was awarded as an alternative captain and made the first team all star that year. I think it was fair to say he was one of the guys who led that team to a Cup. Just as Zetterberg and Osgood had a fair share in leading the Wings to a Cup last year. The Avs certainly thought so and retired his jersey (as ridiculous as I think that might be).

So far Bourque has had a better peak, as well as better longevity than Lidstrom. I consider Lidstrom slightly better defensively than Bourque, but Bourque was a lot better offensively (and also could play physical). Bourque had 1,579 points to Nik's 938; 5 Norris Trophies and 6 runner-ups to Lidstrom's 6 and 3 runner-ups; 13 first-team all star selections to Nik's 8 and 6 second-team all-stars to Nik's 0; and despite Nik having better teams, Bourque leads him in playoff points 180 to 149.

While Bourque's points get a boost from playing in the 80s, he was also competing against a lot more Hall of Fame defenseman (in their primes) than Lidstrom has, for those Norris trophies. Hopefully Lidstrom has a ways to go, and his Conn Smythe trophy is definitely more impressive than Bourque's Calder. Bourque was legitimately robbed of of a Hart (left off the ballots in Edmonton, when Messier won by the smallest margin ever), and Lisdtrom I think has been unfairly overlooked in Hart voting until just recently.

Edited November 20, 2008 by egroen

[Williams29fan 6]

Nick is amazing! One of the best d-man of all time... but there is no way in hell does he win this.

Phelps is amazing too. He is the the best swimmer in the world and ever has been. What he did in Beijing might not ever happen again. 8 golds in one year! W.R in them too! Phelps has this one hands down.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Ok, Messier is not better than Lemiuex because he led his teams to more Cups? More fair comparison?

Bourque led the Avs defense in points his final year, was awarded as an alternative captain and made the first team all star that year. I think it was fair to say he was one of the guys who led that team to a Cup. Just as Zetterberg and Osgood had a fair share in leading the Wings to a Cup last year. The Avs certainly thought so and retired his jersey (as ridiculous as I think that might be).

So far Bourque has had a better peak, as well as better longevity than Lidstrom. I consider Lidstrom slightly better defensively than Bourque, but Bourque was a lot better offensively (and also could play physical). Bourque had 1,579 points to Nik's 938; 5 Norris Trophies and 6 runner-ups to Lidstrom's 6 and 3 runner-ups; 13 first-team all star selections to Nik's 8 and 6 second-team all-stars to Nik's 0; and despite Nik having better teams, Bourque leads him in playoff points 180 to 149.

While Bourque's points get a boost from playing in the 80s, he was also competing against a lot more Hall of Fame defenseman (in their primes) than Lidstrom has, for those Norris trophies. Hopefully Lidstrom has a ways to go, and his Conn Smythe trophy is definitely more impressive than Bourque's Calder. Bourque was legitimately robbed of of a Hart (left off the ballots in Edmonton, when Messier won by the smallest margin ever), and Lisdtrom I think has been unfairly overlooked in Hart voting until just recently.

Good argument, but Lidstrom is better than Bourque.

The points Bourque had were inflated from playing in the 80's. Look at a guy like Phil Housley who had well over 1,000 points, or a guy like Paul Coffey who had even more than Housley. Do you think those 2 guys are better than Lidstrom also just because they have more points?

I'll take 6 Norris trophies and 4 Cups over 3 Norris trophies and 1 Cup any day.

Also, it's not like Lidstrom has been competing against nobodies for Norrises. Pronger and Niedermayer are both hall of famers, and guys like Zubov, Gonchar and Chara are no slouches either.

The fact that Lidstrom at this age is still winning trophies proves to me that he's been better for a longer time than Bourque has. Yet you somehow claim that Bourque has better longevity. How many Norris trophies did Bourque win in his late 30's?

These arguments are probably fruitless because both guys have arguments on their side, but I think Listrom's ability to play better with age and his defensive awareness put him above Bourque in my book.

[egroen 384]

Good argument, but Lidstrom is better than Bourque.

The points Bourque had were inflated from playing in the 80's. Look at a guy like Phil Housley who had well over 1,000 points, or a guy like Paul Coffey who had even more than Housley. Do you think those 2 guys are better than Lidstrom also just because they have more points?

I'll take 6 Norris trophies and 4 Cups over 3 Norris trophies and 1 Cup any day.

Also, it's not like Lidstrom has been competing against nobodies for Norrises. Pronger and Niedermayer are both hall of famers, and guys like Zubov, Gonchar and Chara are no slouches either.

The fact that Lidstrom at this age is still winning trophies proves to me that he's been better for a longer time than Bourque has. Yet you somehow claim that Bourque has better longevity. How many Norris trophies did Bourque win in his late 30's?

These arguments are probably fruitless because both guys have arguments on their side, but I think Listrom's ability to play better with age and his defensive awareness put him above Bourque in my book.

Coffey and Housely especially were not anywhere close to being elite defensively. Bourque was. Like Orr (and Lidstrom), Bourque's defense did not suffer from also being involved offensively.

Pronger and Neidermayer are the only sure Hall of Famers Lidstrom has been competing with this decade. Bourque was competing against (and beating) Langway, Robinson, Potvin, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy, Stevens, Leetch and MacInnis -- All Hall of Famers -- and Mark Howe (who should be). The level of competition is not even comparable. I am not sure if Pronger or Neidermayer is better than a single other defenseman I listed. Ok, they are better than Murphy.

In 2001, a 40 year-old Bourque was runner-up to a 30 year-old Lidstrom for the Norris*. He was a first-team all star the year he retired and has a total of 13 first team all-star selections (more than any other player that has ever played in the NHL). Lidstrom is a bit of a late bloomer, but so far, Bourque has far exceeded him in longevity, having been excellent from the start of his career to the finish. First-team all star in both his first, and his last years in the NHL.

* A year later a 41 year-old Chelios would narrowly lose to Lidstrom for the Norris -- Just think how good these guys were in their primes!

Edited November 20, 2008 by egroen

[Opie 308]

Ok, Messier is not better than Lemiuex because he led his teams to more Cups? More fair comparison?

Bourque led the Avs defense in points his final year, was awarded as an alternative captain and made the first team all star that year. I think it was fair to say he was one of the guys who led that team to a Cup. Just as Zetterberg and Osgood had a fair share in leading the Wings to a Cup last year. The Avs certainly thought so and retired his jersey (as ridiculous as I think that might be).

So far Bourque has had a better peak, as well as better longevity than Lidstrom. I consider Lidstrom slightly better defensively than Bourque, but Bourque was a lot better offensively (and also could play physical). Bourque had 1,579 points to Nik's 938; 5 Norris Trophies and 6 runner-ups to Lidstrom's 6 and 3 runner-ups; 13 first-team all star selections to Nik's 8 and 6 second-team all-stars to Nik's 0; and despite Nik having better teams, Bourque leads him in playoff points 180 to 149.

While Bourque's points get a boost from playing in the 80s, he was also competing against a lot more Hall of Fame defenseman (in their primes) than Lidstrom has, for those Norris trophies. Hopefully Lidstrom has a ways to go, and his Conn Smythe trophy is definitely more impressive than Bourque's Calder. Bourque was legitimately robbed of of a Hart (left off the ballots in Edmonton, when Messier won by the smallest margin ever), and Lisdtrom I think has been unfairly overlooked in Hart voting until just recently.

Again Mess and Lemiuex are not that comparable where leading a team to a cup is necessary to decide between the two.

Egroen, I have seen your posts and you are nowhere near a troll or puck bunny but is it really that hard for you to understand that I was using it as a deciding factor between the two, not saying that as a whole the comparison is valid for all players.

So Lids loses credit for having Dats and Z but Bourque doesn't lose credit with Neely on his team?

Everyone who has ever won a cup had other players with them that helped them win. Did Gretzky win it by himself? Did Yzerman win it by himself, Sakic, Modano?

THE POINT IS THAT WHEN COMPARING BOURQUE AND LIDS, JUST THOSE TWO, I THINK LEADING THE TEAM TO A CUP PUTS BOURQUE AHEAD.

Edit: I hate when work gets in the way, that should read Lids ahead not Bourque!

Edited November 20, 2008 by Opie

[egroen 384]

Again Mess and Lemiuex are not that comparable where leading a team to a cup is necessary to decide between the two.

Egroen, I have seen your posts and you are nowhere near a troll or puck bunny but is it really that hard for you to understand that I was using it as a deciding factor between the two, not saying that as a whole the comparison is valid for all players.

So Lids loses credit for having Dats and Z but Bourque doesn't lose credit with Neely on his team?

Everyone who has ever won a cup had other players with them that helped them win. Did Gretzky win it by himself? Did Yzerman win it by himself, Sakic, Modano?

THE POINT IS THAT WHEN COMPARING BOURQUE AND LIDS, JUST THOSE TWO, I THINK LEADING THE TEAM TO A CUP PUTS BOURQUE AHEAD.

Edit: I hate when work gets in the way, that should read Lids ahead not Bourque!

Your opinion is a valid one, I'm just debating it.

I think Lidstrom had just about as much of a leadership role in the Wings' previous Cup wins as he did in '08. You do not have to be the captain to lead the team. I just don't think Boston compares very favorably to the teams Detroit was able to ice.

I think Hasek is a much better goalie than Roy, but many would not even consider that because Roy has more Cups. I tend to place less value on that than others, when rating them overall as a player.

Edited November 20, 2008 by egroen

[kook_10 1,705]

Coffey and Housely especially were not anywhere close to being elite defensively. Bourque was. Like Orr (and Lidstrom), Bourque's defense did not suffer from also being involved offensively.

Pronger and Neidermayer are the only sure Hall of Famers Lidstrom has been competing with this decade. Bourque was competing against (and beating) Langway, Robinson, Potvin, Coffey, Chelios, Murphy, Stevens, Leetch and MacInnis -- All Hall of Famers -- and Mark Howe (who should be). The level of competition is not even comparable.

In 2001, a 40 year-old Bourque was runner-up to a 30 year-old Lidstrom for the Norris*. He was a first-team all star the year he retired and has a total of 13 first team all-star selections (more than any other player that has ever played in the NHL). Lidstrom is a bit of a late bloomer, but so far, Bourque has far exceeded him in longevity, having been excellent from the start of his career to the finish. First-team all star in both his first, and his last years in the NHL.

* A year later a 41 year-old Chelios would narrowly lose to Lidstrom for the Norris -- Just think how good these guys were in their primes!

Lids has been the top scoring defenseman 5 times to Bourque's 2 and has had the best +/- of any defenseman 3x to Bourque's goose egg, and has never had a minus season.

To say that any one decade is better than another is just overly sentimental. Bourque was also playing before Europeans made a true infiltration of the league- Lids is swimming in a much bigger pool. Within context Lidstrom is clearly the best defenseman of his generation. In any given year Ray Bourque was never head and shoulders above his competition whether it was Potvin, Coffey, Stevens, Leetch or Vladdy or Nik.

Edited November 20, 2008 by kook_10

[mjlegend 155]

Bourque was very good but I like to watch old games and see the guys back then just blow by him. He didn't have the speed Lidstrom has, but he had comprarable vision for the first pass. And he could grow a good playoff beard.

I just don't get peoples' love affair with Bourque. He was very good but before 2001, he wasn't even the best player to never win the Cup. On the ice, I'd take Coffey over Bourque in any year in the 80s; in the early 90s I'd take Stevens over Bourque. Since the Wings first Cup, I'll take Lidstrom over Bourque.

And I would take none of them for Sportsman of the Year.

[egroen 384]

Lids has been the top scoring defenseman 5 times to Bourque's 2 and has had the best +/- of any defenseman to Bourque's goose egg, and has never had a minus season.

To say that any one decade is better than another is just overly sentimental. Bourque was also playing before Europeans made a true infiltration of the league- Lids is swimming in a much bigger pool. Within context Lidstrom is clearly the best defenseman of his generation. In any given year Ray Bourque was never head and shoulders above his competition whether it was Potvin, Coffey, Stevens, Leetch or Vladdy or Nik.

Ray Bourque is third all-time in +/- with a +528 to Lidstrom's +381. Lidstrom was not outscoring an even past-his-prime Paul Coffey either when they were both on the Red Wings, now was he?

Which Hall-of-Fame European defensemen are giving Lidstrom a run for his money in Norris voting each year? Salming, at least, was a great defenseman and Hall of Famer in Bourque's time.

Your head-and-shoulders comment is out of pure ignorance.

In '87 Bourque received 52 1st place votes for the Norris with Howe and Coffey only receiving one each. He was also runner-up to Gretzky for the Hart.

In '90 Bourque received ALL 63 1st place votes for the Norris, and was runner-up to Messier for the Hart by only 2 points (the closest margin ever, in a sham in which he was left completely off the ballots in Edmonton).

Lidstrom has never won the Norris by such a margin, or placed as high in Hart voting.

We really can't make any statements comparing eras? I can't say the top forwards of the 80s were better than the top forwards today? Or that golies in the 90s were better than goalies of the 80s? That's no fun.

Edited November 20, 2008 by egroen

[kook_10 1,705]

Ray Bourque is third all-time in +/- with a +528 to Lidstrom's +381. Lidstrom was not outscoring an even past-his-prime Paul Coffey either when they were both on the Red Wings, now was he?

Which Hall-of-Fame European defensemen are giving Lidstrom a run for his money in Norris voting each year? Salming, at least, was a great defenseman in Bourque's time.

Your head-and-shoulders comment is out of pure ignorance.

In '87 Bourque received 52 1st place votes for the Norris with Howe and Coffey only receiving one. He was also runner-up to Gretzky for the Hart.

In '90 Bourque received ALL 63 1st place votes for the Norris, and was runner-up to Messier for the Hart by only 2 points (the closest margin ever, in a sham where he was left completely off the ballots in Edmonton).

Lidstrom has never won the Norris by such a margin, or placed as high in Hart voting.

We really can't make any statements comparing eras? I can't say the top forwards of the 80s were better than the top forwards today? Or that golies in the 90s were better than goalies of the 80s? That's no fun.

I am not trying to slam Bourque as he is one of the greatest of all time, but no one ever talked about naming it the Bourque Trophy nor did analysts, broadcasters and fans universally praise him as CLEARLY the best defenseman in the league year in and year out for years on end. I stand by head and shoulders. Its a term relative to your peers. It was you who pointed out Bourque's stiff competition and the lack thereof for Lidstrom! Are we really believe that even with more countries than ever feeding the league defensemen are worse than in the 80's?

I didnt say you cant compare eras. I said that saying one decade is better than another is just overly sentimental. The talent pool is larger now and game is different, and the role of the defensive corps is different. If you look at the stats, the proportion of goals by defensemen was much higher. I dont think that made them better necessarily, just more involved in offensively play for one because you could score 50 footers then. This is also why it took Nik a while to get recognized for playing a conservative defensive game. As for lifetime +/- I think we all hope Nik will get there, as we are all fans right?

Edited November 20, 2008 by kook_10

[egroen 384]

I think it is fair to say that if Bourque, Chelios, Leetch and MacInnis were giving Lidstrom legitimate competition as 40 year-olds in the twilight of their careers for the Norris, that those guys in their prime would be giving Lidstrom a lot more competition than he has been facing. If we had not lost Konstantinov, he would have given Lidstrom a lot of competition as well.

I just do not think Lidstrom is currently "better" all time than Bourque, but if he continues with the high level of play he exhibited last year he could get there. The other important thing to remember about Lidstrom is he missed an entire season due to the lockout in the middle of his prime Norris-winning years. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to think Lidstrom might have won a Norris that year as well.

But yes, Lidstrom has not faced near the competition guys like Bourque and Chelios faced in their primes... it is tough to argue against the pedigree and the sheer amount of Hall of Famers each faced.

[kook_10 1,705]

I think it is fair to say that if Bourque, Chelios, Leetch and MacInnis were giving Lidstrom legitimate competition as 40 year-olds in the twilight of their careers for the Norris, that those guys in their prime would be giving Lidstrom a lot more competition than he has been facing. If we had not lost Konstantinov, he would have given Lidstrom a lot of competition as well.

I just do not think Lidstrom is currently "better" all time than Bourque, but if he continues with the high level of play he exhibited last year he could get there. The other important thing to remember about Lidstrom is he missed an entire season due to the lockout in the middle of his prime Norris-winning years. It is not much of a stretch of the imagination to think Lidstrom might have won a Norris that year as well.

But yes, Lidstrom has not faced near the competition guys like Bourque and Chelios faced in their primes... it is tough to argue against the pedigree and the sheer amount of Hall of Famers each faced.

It is definitely fair to say they were giving him competition, but the general changes in the style hockey played since the mid 90's has benefited Lidstrom greatly [thanks to Scotty et al!] because it suits him well. It would also be fair to say that Lidstrom might not do as well in that era. Many of the marquee 80's defensemen would also have a tougher time playing in todays style (and refereeing!), and mind you the Hall doesnt call until retirement.

All that said - sportsman of the year? no thats Phelps