1997-1998 Norris Trophy

[Hawkey Town 18]

I saw mentioned in another thread that Lidstrom was robbed of the Norris in 1997-1998. For some reason I have no memory of this, but at a quick glance it seems like there's an argument for Lidstrom over Blake. Can some of you guys fill me in on what happened that year? Did Blake deserve to win that year? If so, why? If not, why did he?

Also curious to hear of any other "controversial" Norris trophies that you feel were awarded to the wrong person.

Thanks,
Johnny

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Until Lidstrom shut down Lindros in 1997, people still thought of him as a soft European offensive defenseman. If he was good defensively he'd have more hits!

The more European style of positional mastery and stickwork wasn't really recognized as a good defensive tactic, yet. In 97-98, people finally started giving Lidstrom recognition, but it still took years to realize just how good he was.

Blake scored at a similar level to Lidstrom (more goals, fewer assists), but he had many more hits, and people often confuse physicality for defense.

Blake was not bad defensively at all, just not as good as Lidstrom.

One argument in favor of Blake though - he was, without a doubt, the most valuable defenseman to his team that year. He really carried a mediocre Kings team on his back.

Even now, defensemen who use Lidstrom's less flashy style of defense - guys like Paul Martin and Duncan Keith - don't get the recognition they deserve (or the recognition takes longer than it should). Keith should have been a 2nd Team AS last year IMO.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Until Lidstrom shut down Lindros in 1997, people still thought of him as a soft European offensive defenseman. If he was good defensively he'd have more hits!

The more European style of positional mastery and stickwork wasn't really recognized as a good defensive tactic, yet. In 97-98, people finally started giving Lidstrom recognition, but it still took years to realize just how good he was.

Blake scored at a similar level to Lidstrom (more goals, fewer assists), but he had many more hits, and people often confuse physicality for defense.

Blake was not bad defensively at all, just not as good as Lidstrom.

One argument in favor of Blake though - he was, without a doubt, the most valuable defenseman to his team that year. He really carried a mediocre Kings team on his back.

Even now, defensemen who use Lidstrom's less flashy style of defense - guys like Paul Martin and Duncan Keith - don't get the recognition they deserve (or the recognition takes longer than it should). Keith should have been a 2nd Team AS last year IMO.

Thanks for the info!

What's your final ruling? Should have been Lidstrom, they got it right with Blake, or too close to call...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the info!

What's your final ruling? Should have been Lidstrom, they got it right with Blake, or too close to call...

I lean towards Lidstrom, but I don't think it was a "robbery." Blake should have been a very close second probably. Lidstrom was great, but wasn't quite as good as he would later become.

Now if Mike Green wins it this year over Keith... that would be robbery.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Until Lidstrom shut down Lindros in 1997, people still thought of him as a soft European offensive defenseman. If he was good defensively he'd have more hits!

The more European style of positional mastery and stickwork wasn't really recognized as a good defensive tactic, yet. In 97-98, people finally started giving Lidstrom recognition, but it still took years to realize just how good he was.

Blake scored at a similar level to Lidstrom (more goals, fewer assists), but he had many more hits, and people often confuse physicality for defense.

Blake was not bad defensively at all, just not as good as Lidstrom.

One argument in favor of Blake though - he was, without a doubt, the most valuable defenseman to his team that year. He really carried a mediocre Kings team on his back.

Even now, defensemen who use Lidstrom's less flashy style of defense - guys like Paul Martin and Duncan Keith - don't get the recognition they deserve (or the recognition takes longer than it should). Keith should have been a 2nd Team AS last year IMO.

very true. it was a travesty that weber destroyed keith in the norris voting last year, even though keith plays in a major market and was on a much-talked about team, but not surprising at all. for many voters who watch sportscenter instead of games, bodychecks = defense. see also: phaneuf, dion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

very true. it was a travesty that weber destroyed keith in the norris voting last year, even though keith plays in a major market and was on a much-talked about team, but not surprising at all. for many voters who watch sportscenter instead of games, bodychecks = defense. see also: phaneuf, dion.

Seriously. Do people realize that we were a Nicklas Lidstrom away from "Norris Trophy winner Dion Phaneuf?"

 

[danincanada]

1997-1998 Season:

Nicklas Lidstrom GP 80 G 17 A 42 Pts 59 +22 PIM 18 TOI AVG 27:14

Rob Blake GP 81 G 23 A 27 Pts 50 -3 PIM 94 TOI AVG 26:26

The statistics were all in favour of Lidstrom other than goals and Blake was never as effective defensively as Lidstrom.

It was the media hyping "most people don't see what Rob Blake is doing this season cause he's on the west coast" along with the myth that to be good defensively a player must be physical as TDME pointed out.

Lidstrom couldn't buy a Norris back then even though this Norris voting was sandwhiched between two Cup runs as a #1 D. Most people just didn't get it...yet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1997-1998 Season:

Nicklas Lidstrom GP 80 G 17 A 42 Pts 59 +22 PIM 18 TOI AVG 27:14

Rob Blake GP 81 G 23 A 27 Pts 50 -3 PIM 94 TOI AVG 26:26

The statistics were all in favour of Lidstrom other than goals and Blake was never as effective defensively as Lidstrom.

It was the media hyping "most people don't see what Rob Blake is doing this season cause he's on the west coast" along with the myth that to be good defensively a player must be physical as TDME pointed out.

Lidstrom couldn't buy a Norris back then even though this Norris voting was sandwhiched between two Cup runs as a #1 D. Most people just didn't get it...yet.

In 1996-1997, Lidstrom was still in a 1a/1b situation with Konstantinov. Konstantinov was the Norris runner up in 1997.

 

[danincanada]

In 1996-1997, Lidstrom was still in a 1a/1b situation with Konstantinov. Konstantinov was the Norris runner up in 1997.

I loved Vladdy but to me Lidstrom was always the better of the two. Vlad was really great defensively but he still made the odd mistake. I may get shot down for this but Lidstrom very rarely ever made a mistake in those days IMO and he out produced Konstantinov offensively by a rather large margin. Konstantinov was nominated for the Norris mostly due to his crazy +/- rating in '97 but I think in the finals against Philly coach Bowman showed everyone who was the more effective defenseman. It wasn't the brawn and abrassiveness of Konstantinov going up against Lindros - it was the uber skill and positioning of Lidstrom that got the job done. Since then Lidstrom has displayed that his style of defending is effective against anyone from Thornton to Crosby. I think '97 just further proves how underrated Lidstrom's style was at that point.

 

[Reds4Life]

Lidstrom deserved to win over Blake. And whether you want to admit it or not, it took some time to understand and appreciate his game. Lidstrom plays quiet game, with basically no flash, that's why he was overlooked for quite some time.

 

[Big Phil]

Seriously. Do people realize that we were a Nicklas Lidstrom away from "Norris Trophy winner Dion Phaneuf?"

For some bizarre reason Phaneuf is not the defenseman he was a few years ago, not the dominating prescence. He's only 25! But in 2008 he brought his game for sure. I have no problem with him being the Norris runner up that year. Who else do you put in his place?

As for the OP the 1998 Norris Trophy has often been a debate. Blake actually finished 10th in Hart voting that year too for a shaky Kings team. Lidstrom certainly deserves the 6 Norris trophies he has earned but he isn't robbed of any of them. 1998 was as close as 2002 IMO. Chelios could have easily won it over Lidstrom. It goes both ways.

 

[MS]

For some bizarre reason Phaneuf is not the defenseman he was a few years ago, not the dominating prescence. He's only 25! But in 2008 he brought his game for sure. I have no problem with him being the Norris runner up that year. Who else do you put in his place?

That was his best year, to be sure.

But he always had the defensive problems he's showing now. They were just covered by his offensive production.

What's happened with Phaneuf over the past 2 years is that he stopped scoring on the PP. His first 3 seasons, 39 of his 54 goals were on the PP, including 16 of 20 in his rookie year! So basically he averaged 5 ES goals/year over that stretch.

His past 2 seasons, only 9 of 22 goals are on the PP. So his ES goalscoring has actually gone up, but his PP scoring has fallen off the face of the earth.

In a nutshell, teams figured out how to cover him on the PP so he couldn't get his good shot off, and he wasn't able to adjust. And suddenly when you aren't scoring 20 goals, all your other warts become much more noticeable.

As for the OP the 1998 Norris Trophy has often been a debate. Blake actually finished 10th in Hart voting that year too for a shaky Kings team. Lidstrom certainly deserves the 6 Norris trophies he has earned but he isn't robbed of any of them. 1998 was as close as 2002 IMO. Chelios could have easily won it over Lidstrom. It goes both ways.

Blake was good that year, but it still should have been Lidstrom by a comfortable margin. With Konstantinov and Vernon gone, he carried that team defensively to a 2nd straight Cup.

 

[matnor]

I think TheDevilMadeMe has made a couple of very good points in this thread. Way too often do people mistake physicality for good defense. Don't get me wrong, playing physically can be a very effective defensive strategy but it is the open ice hits more than anything that gets defensemen overrated. An open ice hit is often delivered just after the puck has left the opponents stick. At that point the hit is no longer effective as a defensive play but only serves as intimidation. A good hit should imo serve to separate the player from the puck which often is not the case with the open ice hits. As someone who watches Red Wings on a semi-regular basis it can sometimes be annoying watching Kronwall and Stuart take themselves out of position just to deliver a big hit.

On topic, I didn't watch NHL in the 90s (we didn't have the channels in my family) but I read quite a lot about the NHL. One thing that was constantly written about was how under the radar Lidström was. I remember quotes from opponents saying that when they were preparing to meet the Red Wings powerplay they didn't focus on Yzerman, Fedorov, Kozlov etc, it was Lidström that was the focus of attention. Obviously I mostly read Swedish media which is biased towards Swedish players but I think it's fair to say that Lidström was a bit underrated in the middle of the 90s.

 

[Big Phil]

Blake was good that year, but it still should have been Lidstrom by a comfortable margin. With Konstantinov and Vernon gone, he carried that team defensively to a 2nd straight Cup.

No disrespect to Lids, but Fetisov was still there that year, even though he was old

 

[norrisnick]

No disrespect to Lids, but Fetisov was still there that year, even though he was old

Fetisov blew out his knee in that same crash that ended Konstantinov's career. He was barely a shadow of his former self for the 50-odd games he played.

 

[Epsilon]

I was honestly shocked at the result watching the awards that year. I thought that Pronger was closer to Lidstrom that season than Blake was and that the voting would be a close win for Lidstrom over Pronger with Blake well in third. Too many of the voters treated it as "MVP on Defense" that season rather than what the award is actually for.