• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Sycsa

Lidstrom to win Norris trophy?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Lidstrom hasn't even been the best defenseman on our team, IMO, let alone the entire league. I don't know if he would win the Norris even if he was playing hockey ala lidstrom 2002, though. I feel like there are too many influential people who see Lids as inferior to Orr and have to justify that by not voting for his tying Norris trophy. It doesn't matter either way, though.

This to a "T"

They will never vote Lidstrom an 8th trophy just because that would mean that people would have to admit that Lidstrom is just as good as or even better than Orr ever was. So by that fact alone, Lids will retire with 7 Norris Trophies.

On that note, if I am making a team and picking players from their prime, Lidstrom gets picked before Orr...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's been my fear; that he might not get the nods because his achievements would rival that of Orr's.

Did anyone actually read the article? I don't see any reason why he can't win. He is tied for the best +/- there is; regardless of how useless that stat is. One of the three tied with a +25 is Ian White. He doesn't have 50 pts, but this isn't the Art Ross. He is still having a solid year and is in the top 10 for goals by defenseman. Not to mention all that stuff that was covered in the article.

I thought it was funny the video clip had the analysts picking Weber and Karlsson, while the article pegs Lids as the winner.

So, you think he might deserve to win becuase of his +/-, even if the stat is useless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that Nick will be glad to pass the torch to Karlsson. Karlsson's stats are freekin incredible. If Karlsson doesn't win this year there is something wrong.

30 goals as a D-man is more impressive than just being about a Point-per-game. Also, Karlsson is still a high-risk player. It try to watch Ottawa every now and then and every time I do I see Karlsson making atleast a few stupid plays per game that lead to odd-man rushes or breakways for the other team. Even just looking at highlights from their games you'll see many occasions where the other team has a good chance and Karlsson is the 4th or 5th Ottawa guy getting back in the defensive zone.

He's having an awesome year but all that offense DOES come at a cost. If it was Game 7 of the Cup Final, with 1 minute left and the score tied, as a coach I'd be really, really hesitant to put Karlsson out on the ice. On the other, I would do everything I could to get Lidstrom out there as much as possible.

Adam Larsson is a more likely heir to Lidstrom's throne imo. I find it more likely that he will start putting up better offensive numbers than Karlsson becoming a good shutdown D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that Nick will be glad to pass the torch to Karlsson. Karlsson's stats are freekin incredible. If Karlsson doesn't win this year there is something wrong.

His offensive stats have been great, his defensive stats have been meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This to a "T"

They will never vote Lidstrom an 8th trophy just because that would mean that people would have to admit that Lidstrom is just as good as or even better than Orr ever was. So by that fact alone, Lids will retire with 7 Norris Trophies.

On that note, if I am making a team and picking players from their prime, Lidstrom gets picked before Orr...

I think that is absolutely asinine. If you want to argue that people won't give him Norris because they don't want to admit Lidstrom is just as good or better, those same people could just fall back on this:

Orr, ignoring his rookie year, effectively played 8 seasons in the NHL, in those 8 seasons he has won:

- 8 Norris trophies

- 3 Hart trophies

- 2 Conn Smythe trophies

- 2 Art Ross trophies

Some would argue that if his career was not cut short, he could have won 15-20 Norris trophies.

His offensive stats have been great, his defensive stats have been meh.

The problem is that there really are no defensive stats. Any stats you find that you can try and present as defensive stats are subjective at best.

That's the problem I always have with trying to determine who the best is defensively. You can do that with the Wings because you watch them play all the time. You can't really assess a player's defensive play without watching them all the time. Unless you watch every player just as much as every other player, you will never be able to form an objective view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would you put above him? Not Kronwall. He's been good but had some really awful mistakes and weak games. White is having a great season in part because he's paired with Lidstrom.

Who's been better from your point of view just out of curiosity? Ericsson? :hehe:

I think Stuart has been our best defenseman this year, which i'm entirely prepared to receive flak for. He doesn't have the offensive prowess of lidstrom, kronwall, or white, and those stats certainly won't paint a sexy picture of him, but I think what he has been providing in our own zone has more than made up for that.

I can certainly see the appeal for lidstrom because of his contributions across all 200 feet of ice, but again, Stuart's play in his own end and what he brings to the table are things that I don't see other guys on our team capable of replacing, and if we end up beating a big, powerful, cycling team like the ducks, sharks, or bruins in the playoffs, it will be largely because of him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you think he might deserve to win becuase of his +/-, even if the stat is useless?

No. Just pointing out what metrics are available and that some take into account when making that decision. Obviously he can win with a -2, why not a +25?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Stuart has been our best defenseman this year, which i'm entirely prepared to receive flak for. He doesn't have the offensive prowess of lidstrom, kronwall, or white, and those stats certainly won't paint a sexy picture of him, but I think what he has been providing in our own zone has more than made up for that.

I can certainly see the appeal for lidstrom because of his contributions across all 200 feet of ice, but again, Stuart's play in his own end and what he brings to the table are things that I don't see other guys on our team capable of replacing, and if we end up beating a big, powerful, cycling team like the ducks, sharks, or bruins in the playoffs, it will be largely because of him.

I don't think that's a crazy argument. He doesn't face as tough of competition as Lidstrom does, and as you point out doesn't have the offensive prowess, but I agree he's been very solid this year.

If he does end up going back to California next season, he'll definitely be missed. He was a great pickup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a crazy argument. He doesn't face as tough of competition as Lidstrom does, and as you point out doesn't have the offensive prowess, but I agree he's been very solid this year.

If he does end up going back to California next season, he'll definitely be missed. He was a great pickup.

This is why Suter is so crucial to the Wings' future. He can contribute offensively to alleviate Lidstrom's retirement, and he's also hard in the corners and around the net, which frankly I believe the Wings severely lack on defense. Stuart provides it, White can provide it but doesn't with the regularity and effectiveness that Stuart does, and Ericsson tries to and sometimes does well, but it's inconsistent and often ineffective. Other than that we really just let other teams own our perimeter and hope Jimmy can make a save with at the most a favorable rebound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick's got a shot, you don't always have to put up a lot of points to be considered, NHL.com's reasoning that the Central Division is tough as nails this year and Nick has held it down in even strength seems legit, though maybe he becomes a finalist just as a formality as this point?

Also, Draper won the Selke in '03 - '04? Totally forgot about that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 goals as a D-man is more impressive than just being about a Point-per-game. Also, Karlsson is still a high-risk player. It try to watch Ottawa every now and then and every time I do I see Karlsson making atleast a few stupid plays per game that lead to odd-man rushes or breakways for the other team. Even just looking at highlights from their games you'll see many occasions where the other team has a good chance and Karlsson is the 4th or 5th Ottawa guy getting back in the defensive zone.

He's having an awesome year but all that offense DOES come at a cost. If it was Game 7 of the Cup Final, with 1 minute left and the score tied, as a coach I'd be really, really hesitant to put Karlsson out on the ice. On the other, I would do everything I could to get Lidstrom out there as much as possible.

Adam Larsson is a more likely heir to Lidstrom's throne imo. I find it more likely that he will start putting up better offensive numbers than Karlsson becoming a good shutdown D.

You make some good points. He may not win the Norris this season but the tools this kid has at his age if he continues to grow his game and tightens up defensively he will no doubt win his share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that is absolutely asinine. If you want to argue that people won't give him Norris because they don't want to admit Lidstrom is just as good or better, those same people could just fall back on this:

Orr, ignoring his rookie year, effectively played 8 seasons in the NHL, in those 8 seasons he has won:

- 8 Norris trophies

- 3 Hart trophies

- 2 Conn Smythe trophies

- 2 Art Ross trophies

Some would argue that if his career was not cut short, he could have won 15-20 Norris trophies.

The problem is that there really are no defensive stats. Any stats you find that you can try and present as defensive stats are subjective at best.

That's the problem I always have with trying to determine who the best is defensively. You can do that with the Wings because you watch them play all the time. You can't really assess a player's defensive play without watching them all the time. Unless you watch every player just as much as every other player, you will never be able to form an objective view.

In no way is this to negate the greatness of Bobby Orr, but in a 6 team league he won it 8 times, with approx 36 Dmen to compete against in a era where hockey wasn't the logjam of great players it is today. Lids won his norris trophies all in a 30 team league against approx 180 Dmen. It's the same as the Gretzky debate playing in the insanely high scoring 80's with no salary cap and on an Oilers team with a ridiculous roster. Tell me Stamkos isn't as good a trigger man as Brett Hull...better goalies these days too...86 goals in a season for Hull, Stamkos on pace for almost 60. Apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In no way is this to negate the greatness of Bobby Orr, but in a 6 team league he won it 8 times, with approx 36 Dmen to compete against in a era where hockey wasn't the logjam of great players it is today. Lids won his norris trophies all in a 30 team league against approx 180 Dmen. It's the same as the Gretzky debate playing in the insanely high scoring 80's with no salary cap and on an Oilers team with a ridiculous roster. Tell me Stamkos isn't as good a trigger man as Brett Hull...better goalies these days too...86 goals in a season for Hull, Stamkos on pace for almost 60. Apples and oranges.

Bobby Orr did not play at in the original 6 era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lidstrom is the second-greatest defenceman of all time, IMO, but it is folly to suggest he was as good as or better than Orr. There has never been anyone else in hockey able to do what Orr did. Even with bad knees most of his career, his skating was as good as or better than Coffey's, his vision was almost Gretzky-esque and he could more than hold his own physically.

The idea that his accomplishments should be downgraded because he won his Norris trophies in a smaller league is a logical fallacy. When Orr played (mostly in a 12-team league), the worst player he faced was about the 240th best player in North America at that time. Lidstrom plays against guys every night who are at best the 500th- to 600th-best player, albeit in the entire world and not just North America.

There's no surefire way to compare eras, but I am convinced that if 18-year-old Bobby Orr came along today, he would become as dominant a force as he was back then. He would not put up as many points as he did because hockey is less wide open, more well coached and has goalies who are both better and have much bigger equipment. But he would dominate, especially considering that when he played, obstruction was standard practice and now it is (somewhat) gone. And of course if he came along today, his first knee injury would have been fixed with a simple arthroscopic procedure and he likely wouldn't have suffered the ongoing deterioration in his knee that ruined his career.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike Green would be pissed IMO if Karlsson got it and he didn't get it back in 09

But in 2009, Green finished with 73 pts, 2nd place Dman had 64 points. Quite a bit different from projections this year for Karlsson to finish with 83pts and number 2 at 55pts. Astronomically different actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lidstrom is the best D to ever play IMO. The NHL has greatly changed from the time of Orr played.

Orr < Lidstrom

2 Stanley Cups < 4 Stanley Cups

Please tell me, you're not serious with a crappy explanation like that. Let me try the same reasoning.

Gretzky < Beliveau

4 Stanley cups < 10 Stanley Cups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that anything like

Roenick and Kariya combined < Kopecky?

Well not really, since Kopecky isn't a great player and no one would rank him above those two.

But when you're comparing great players to each other, you can't just go on Cup rings. Too many things factor into that. In this case, Orr didn't play a full career. Also, remember that back then there was Montreal to mess around with. Winning a Cup with any other franchise couldn't have been easy.

At the same time, if Orr did play a full career, he'd have a lot more than 8 Norris trophies. Lidstrom won a few Norris trophies which could have arguably gone to other players. Orr was putting up numbers no defenseman could have dreamed of back then. He was clearly the favorite to take the Norris every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lidstrom won a few Norris trophies which could have arguably gone to other players.

I tend to agree with the points you make here GMR, however this one I sort of disagree with. While the above is actually true, so is the reverse of it -- there were several years before Nick started winning the Norris that he was arguably the best Dman in the NHL but instead it went to jerks like Rob Blake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick Lidstrom should have won at least 2 or 3 Norris Trophies before he finally got his first one, but that was not the case.

Nick Lidstrom has, for 20 years, done his job of successfully shutting down the other teams' top players and, in the process, having a large part generating our offence. Orr, on the other hand, played a purely offensive game in a time where that was the style to play. To top that, it was significantly easier to score on goalies back then, which has increased his numbers dramatically compared to what they would be in the modern NHL. Yes, Orr's career was cut short whereas Nick has barely missed any games for 20 years, but that says something about Nick and his durability.

Both players are outstanding and unquestionably the best 2 dmen in history, but it is VERY DIFFICULT to compare them as they played completely different games in 2 completely different eras. Given modern NHL, imo Nick Lidstrom is a better defenseman because today's league requires a 2 way dman that can shut down opposing players and provide offence, something that Nick Lidstrom has perfected for 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with the points you make here GMR, however this one I sort of disagree with. While the above is actually true, so is the reverse of it -- there were several years before Nick started winning the Norris that he was arguably the best Dman in the NHL but instead it went to jerks like Rob Blake.

Well that's true, but the point is that today's Norris trophy races are closer. Someone could make an argument for being snubbed every year. However, Orr was just way above the other defensemen of his time. And I don't think that means that era was weak. There were plenty of good defensemen in the 70's.

But something is to be said when a guy is just far above the rest. I mean, if the era was weak and defenders weren't as good as they later became, then where did this Orr guy come from? How come he wasn't just slightly better than everyone else? Was he from outer space?

Nick Lidstrom should have won at least 2 or 3 Norris Trophies before he finally got his first one, but that was not the case.

Nick Lidstrom has, for 20 years, done his job of successfully shutting down the other teams' top players and, in the process, having a large part generating our offence. Orr, on the other hand, played a purely offensive game in a time where that was the style to play. To top that, it was significantly easier to score on goalies back then, which has increased his numbers dramatically compared to what they would be in the modern NHL. Yes, Orr's career was cut short whereas Nick has barely missed any games for 20 years, but that says something about Nick and his durability.

Both players are outstanding and unquestionably the best 2 dmen in history, but it is VERY DIFFICULT to compare them as they played completely different games in 2 completely different eras. Given modern NHL, imo Nick Lidstrom is a better defenseman because today's league requires a 2 way dman that can shut down opposing players and provide offence, something that Nick Lidstrom has perfected for 20 years.

Orr dominated his era way more than Lidstrom dominated his. Orr was a player who revolutionized hockey in a sense. Much like Gretzky, he put up numbers way better than anyone else for his era, or any era of defense really.

Lidstrom has been consistently the best defenseman in hockey for about 15 years. But he's not doing anything stats wise every year that no one else could dream of or approach.

And durability is an important factor, but I don't think it's that important in this argument. Potvin, Robinson, Bourque, Coffey, Harvey and many others had a longer career at being great than Bobby Orr. I wouldn't put any of those players ahead of him.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orr, on the other hand, played a purely offensive game in a time where that was the style to play. To top that, it was significantly easier to score on goalies back then, which has increased his numbers dramatically compared to what they would be in the modern NHL. Yes, Orr's career was cut short whereas Nick has barely missed any games for 20 years, but that says something about Nick and his durability.

Both players are outstanding and unquestionably the best 2 dmen in history, but it is VERY DIFFICULT to compare them as they played completely different games in 2 completely different eras. Given modern NHL, imo Nick Lidstrom is a better defenseman because today's league requires a 2 way dman that can shut down opposing players and provide offence, something that Nick Lidstrom has perfected for 20 years.

Did you see Orr play? To suggest he was "only" an offensive defenceman is just wrong. And yes, it was easier to score back then, yet no other defenceman came even close to the kind of points totals Orr piled up. Weren't they all facing the same goalies?

Look, I love Lidstrom and I have already said I think he's second-best all time, but he's not first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this