What makes Erik Karlsson inferior to Niklas Lidstrom?

[silkyjohnson50]

Lidstrom's scoring finishes among defencemen:

1st: 4
2nd: 4
3rd: 3

That's 11 seasons as a Top 3 scorer, along with 3 other Top 10 finishes.

Needless to say, he was an elite offensive defencemen who had a remarkable run of consistency and longevity.

So add that offensive player onto arguably the greatest defensive player of all time and you get the picture of what Lidstrom was.

There's not a defenceman in the game today that is as good as Lidstrom was defensively. He could neutralize the best offensive players in the league and make it look easy. He didn't do it with physical intimidation, but by having unreal smarts and positioning to go along with probably the greatest defensive stick the game has seen. His poke check and ability to knock down pucks was such a skill. People often suggest that Lidstrom wasn't flashy, but watch his defensive stick work and tell me that it's not mesmerizing.

Karlsson is an all time great offensive defencemen, but his defensive game - even as much as it has grown the past couple of seasons - isn't really comparable to Lidstrom's. Especially when Lidstrom was brining an elite 2-way game for so long.

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Was Lidstrom ever -6? No?

Well there you go.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I don't understand. Erik Karlsson controls the game in such an amazing way. Granted I haven't watched lidstrom much, but Karlsson is so good at moving the puck . His skating is silky smooth as well. Lidstrom always seemed more subtle in the way he played, wasn't as flashy. I think Karlsson was better offensively. Not only that, it's so hard taking the puck from Karlsson. In a way, Karlsson greatest defense is his offense.

Lidstrom was much better defensively.

Karlsson has improved his defense over the years, but he's still nowhere the shutdown defender that Lidstrom was. Lidstrom could shut down the other team's best or lead the offense with equal ability.

 

[DFC]

Lidstrom was great, but I have to imagine Karlsson on those Detroit teams and I have a hard time not seeing him dominate to an even greater extent, which is arguably already more than Lidstrom did at his best. His consistency, health and longevity is what sets him apart from every other defenseman of this era though, and his peak play was still right there with Pronger or Karlsson.

No. As great as those Detroit teams were, Lidstrom was a big reason for it. Karlsson might put up more points than he does now, but Lidstrom dominated both ends of the ice. And he dominated defensively ALL the time.

 

[DFC]

It's sort of like people forget Lidstrom had Yzerman AND Fedorov for his first 3 cups and later Zetterberg AND Datsyuk for his last one. Karlsson has never played with anyone of HHOF calibre.

I'm starting to think people just hate Karlsson because he plays for a team that isn't theirs.

None of those guys made Lidstrom a better defender. Legend has it, there does exist footage of Lidstrom being beaten one-on-one. :p

Kidding, of course, but it was a really, really rare thing to see him make a blatant mistake. Yzerman, Fedorov, or MariWayne McCrosby had nothing to do with that part.

 

[DFC]

Currently, Karlsson has accomplished more at this point in his career than Lidstrom had. Lidstrom had zero awards (but had a cup) and wasn't even named to his first all-star team until he was 27 which is how old Karlsson is now.

However it would be extremely rare for anyone to have the same career trajectory Lidstrom had, whose prime was arguably 30-40 years old.

He also was unbelievably healthy having only one season in his 20+ years in the NHL where he played less than 70 games, something EK already can't replicate.

Things that make him inferior? Well if it's rings, EK probably won't get one until there is a better support. But most of all it depends on how long EK can play at his highest level.

Lidstrom was the most underrated player in the league for roughly 10 years. Not even close. He was playing at or above Yzerman and Fedorov's level by the time he was 25. Maybe 23. Nobody really noticed until he was 28 or 29.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

Lidstrom was great, but I have to imagine Karlsson on those Detroit teams and I have a hard time not seeing him dominate to an even greater extent, which is arguably already more than Lidstrom did at his best. His consistency, health and longevity is what sets him apart from every other defenseman of this era though, and his peak play was still right there with Pronger or Karlsson.

How magnanimous of you to say that Lidstrom's, an eight time Norris winner, peak was still right there with Karlsson, only a two time winner and Pronger who only won one.
If Karlsson can keep his current level of play for 8-10 more years then he can be compared to Lidstrom. He needs to earn his place.

 

[Alwalys]

Fewer Norrises

 

[The Panther]

Was Lidstrom ever -6? No?

Well there you go.

I know you're joking, but this is a good opportunity to point out the difference between Lidstrom's and Karlsson's respective roles on their teams.

Lidstrom was one cog (the best D-man, such) in a team with a lot of important cogs. Much of the team's success was down to his intelligent, consistent, balanced play.

For most of his best years, Karlsson's role has been very different. He is more akin to what Ray Bourque was like to Boston in the 80s. He is the everything player -- leader, defender, offensive star.

Lidstrom didn't have to do all those kinds of things for his team, and be the go-to guy in every situation.

Therefore, it would be very "difficult", as it were, for Lidstrom to go -6 in a hockey game. For one thing, the Wings of his entire era rarely got blown out, and for another thing if they were down 6-1 or something in the second or third period, it wasn't expected of Lidstrom to take all the offensive gambles to try to get back in it (as it sort of is expected of Karlsson).

So, just slightly different roles on their teams. It doesn't make one better than the other, but it's worth keeping in mind.

As to the thread-topic, I think it's pretty clear why Lidstrom is well above Karlsson at present, for all the reasons others have listed.

 

[DFC]

I know you're joking, but this is a good opportunity to point out the difference between Lidstrom's and Karlsson's respective roles on their teams.

Lidstrom was one cog (the best D-man, such) in a team with a lot of important cogs. Much of the team's success was down to his intelligent, consistent, balanced play.

For most of his best years, Karlsson's role has been very different. He is more akin to what Ray Bourque was like to Boston in the 80s. He is the everything player -- leader, defender, offensive star.

Lidstrom didn't have to do all those kinds of things for his team, and be the go-to guy in every situation.

Therefore, it would be very "difficult", as it were, for Lidstrom to go -6 in a hockey game. For one thing, the Wings of his entire era rarely got blown out, and for another thing if they were down 6-1 or something in the second or third period, it wasn't expected of Lidstrom to take all the offensive gambles to try to get back in it (as it sort of is expected of Karlsson).

So, just slightly different roles on their teams. It doesn't make one better than the other, but it's worth keeping in mind.

As to the thread-topic, I think it's pretty clear why Lidstrom is well above Karlsson at present, for all the reasons others have listed.

I think you're downplaying Lidstrom's role on those Wings teams. Everyone else was a cog. Lidstrom was the machine itself.

It's really hard to describe just how great this guy was to anyone who didn't watch him game in, game out. He "quietly" dominated. But he did it all the time. No doubt he wasn't solely responsible for Detroit's cups, but it's hard to overstate just how important he was to those teams, and how great he was independent of those teams. Like, as great as the wings were, that's not what made it almost impossible to beat Lidstrom one-on-one. Or beat him in a corner battle. Or whatever. Karlsson likely is the better offensive player, but that's really close, whereas Lidstrom is quite clearly the best defender in most of our lifetimes.

 

[snipes]

Defensive play

 

[Claypool]

42 years old and still playing defense like this. Of course, these don't end up on the highlights.

 

[The Panther]

I think you're downplaying Lidstrom's role on those Wings teams. Everyone else was a cog. Lidstrom was the machine itself.

I don't think I'm downplaying him at all. I'm saying he was the best defenseman on the NHL's best team from the early-90s to late 00s. (I think it's a little silly to say that Lidstrom was "the machine" and Yzerman and Fedorov were "cogs".)

Anyway, I also stated that Lidstrom was clearly the better player. But my point is that Karlsson's role is different on his team -- it falls on him to do more things, including taking more risks.

 

[Sentinel]

Because as far as keeping the puck out of your net, Niklas Lidstrom was the GOAT. Be it intercepting the play, taking away the puck, or simply neutralizing the opponent, there were none better.

Also keep in mind that Nick was three times runner up before winning his first Norris.

 

[DFC]

I don't think I'm downplaying him at all. I'm saying he was the best defenseman on the NHL's best team from the early-90s to late 00s. (I think it's a little silly to say that Lidstrom was "the machine" and Yzerman and Fedorov were "cogs".)

Anyway, I also stated that Lidstrom was clearly the better player. But my point is that Karlsson's role is different on his team -- it falls on him to do more things, including taking more risks.

What I meant by that is Lidstrom was on the ice just about all the time. I'm the world's biggest Yzerman fan, but in reality, both he and Fedorov suffered their share of injuries, or rotated through the lineup, or went through slumps, or whatever. Detroit's forwards scored by committee, and defended by committee, but pretty much everything ran through Lidstrom on the back-end. That might be over simplifying, but the team was sort of molded around him and Yzerman, and their cerebral, low-key games, but Lidstrom dominated defensively in a way that was indespensible. I don't think that's true for any other player on those teams.

 

[Cruz]

Was Lidstrom ever -6? No?

Well there you go.

Almost.

 

[Mattb124]

Also keep in mind that Nick was three times runner up before winning his first Norris.

Because he was Swedish. Kidding.

 

[Iceman]

Almost.

Damn... this thread screamed for this video to get posted.

 

[Ainec]

as good as Lidstrom was offensively, and he was one of the best Karlsson is unequivocally better by a clear margin

Mark Stone and recently Mike Hoffman vs ...

 

[Thenameless]

I think you're downplaying Lidstrom's role on those Wings teams. Everyone else was a cog. Lidstrom was the machine itself.

As good as Lidstrom was, that's a bit heavy man. Detroit was loaded with talent. The quasi-dynasty Wings probably come in just under some of the best dynasties in terms of the players they had.

 

[DFC]

As good as Lidstrom was, that's a bit heavy man. Detroit was loaded with talent. The quasi-dynasty Wings probably come in just under some of the best dynasties in terms of the players they had.

Probably shouldn't have used that. But, as I said above, what I really meant is, while Yzerman et al rotated in and out, Lidstrom was a constant. Every big situation, every game, for about 20 years. And he never got hurt.

As key as all those great players were, Lidstrom was the thing that never changed. Yzerman and Fedorov had health issues (or contract issues in Fedorov's case), slumps, whatever. Lidstrom was absolutely constant.

 

[tfong]

Lidstrom's defensive play can not be understated in this equation. The guy was ridiculous on the back line even in his advanced age. See how much of a mess it became after he left? While I think Karlsson is stronger than him defensively, Lidstrom was one of the best (if not the best) defenders of all time and considering he wasn't really physical at all, its pretty remarkable. His on ice intelligence was superb.

Is Karlsson inferior? Maybe defensively, but I think both guys can control the game equally as well. The only difference is how long Lidstrom did it for. We'll just have to see how Karlsson holds up over the years but I wouldn't be afraid to say in the end he could be the better guy. But his slant would be more of a Ray Bourque for me which i think someone else noted as well.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

I've long been a guy who has said EK will become lidstrom esque closer to his thirties...the biggest difference right now is longevity and consistency. EK can absolutely be elite defensively, but he's historically had issues holding it up for a significant length of time. Those lowlights are what draw the criticism. I think that'll even out as he ages, but it's a matter of focus and consistency, not raw ability. All the tools are there--the brain, the stick--they just have to be there more and for longer. But I see a lot of the same offensive IQ, playing chess out there when everyone else is playing checkers...Lidstrom may have been the best at the 'deliberate miss' shot wide....while EK is the first I've ever seen use shot blocking as a transition to offense play.

Someone did point out earlier that Lidstrom was sort of a freak in that he didn't develop into legendary Lidstrom until his mid-to-late twenties while EK had a bit of a headstart--we have to see if he develops and/or holds up (injuries ) to have a career that's more Lidstrom than Leetch.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

I would go as far to say that Lidstrom is probably the best defenseman of all time. His offense combined with his defensive abilities and longevity make him the easiest choice if I had to pick a defenseman to start a franchise with. Sure Orr may have been ahead of his time, but Lidstrom ends up being the better player when put side by side. Just my opinion.

 

[DFC]

as good as Lidstrom was offensively, and he was one of the best Karlsson is unequivocally better by a clear margin

Mark Stone and recently Mike Hoffman vs ...

That might be true, although I'd say the margin, while clear, is small. But Lidstrom was a rare guy who maintained that level of production until he was 40. Consistency is a big part of Lidstrom's legacy.