What makes Erik Karlsson inferior to Niklas Lidstrom?

[LemmyUlanov55]

I'm sorry, but I can't take people serious who think Karlssson - who's a great D-man - is close to Lidström.
Just take a look at what Nik Lidström did without the puck, it's mindblowing.

 

[joe dirte]

Funny enough, the oilers actually did score goals while Pronger wasn't on the ice, in fact, there were whole games he wasn't on the ice for a goal for and they still won . True story. Heck, he wasn't on the ice for the last 3 goals (out of 4 total) they scored to win game six.

Doesn't have to be Pisani, I just chose him because he happened to score the one goal for edmonton (which Pronger had nothing to do with btw since he was sitting on the bench at the time). So maybe Smyth scores goal 2 and Hemsky goal 3. It doesn't really matter. Point remains that winning that game wouldn't have changed Prongers performance.

And again, this isn't about legacy, it's about performance. Winning the cup changes one, but not the other. Perfomance is independent of the game results. You can be good and lose, terrible and win.

pronger performed so well he almost won the oilers a cup, near singlehandedly. imagine his legacy had he performed so well he won the oilers a cup. no matter how you want to look at it, prongers performance that year was unparralelled probably by even lidstrom, at any point in his career. one of the best playoff runs in hockey history. but your average lidstrom wasn't far behind. every single damn year.

 

[Micklebot]

pronger performed so well he almost won the oilers a cup, near singlehandedly. imagine hos legacy had he performed so well he won the oilers a cup.

Omg... not talking about legacy, we're talking about performance. If he performed better, maybe he wins the cup, sure. But that's not at all what I'm talking about, nor am I in any way talking about his legacy. I'm talking about how good he was. winning or losing that game doesn't change how well he played. had Ward been crap, or Roloson a stone wall, it wouldn't have changed Pronger or his performance even if it improved his legacy. These are independent concepts.

 

[joe dirte]

Omg... not talking about legacy, we're talking about performance. If he performed better, maybe he wins the cup, sure. But that's not at all what I'm talking about, nor am I in any way talking about his legacy. I'm talking about how good he was. winning or losing that game doesn't change how well he played. had Ward been crap, or Roloson a stone wall, it wouldn't have changed Pronger or his performance even if it improved his legacy. These are independent concepts.

but how well he plays can very well change whether or not he wins the cup. they arent completely independent of each other.

 

[Micklebot]

but how well he plays can very well change whether or not he wins the cup. they arent completely independent of each other.

That's great, but it's not what we are talking about. If he played better and won the cup, yes, his performance would have been better. The point being made is that cup wins don't affect performance, and since you can judge performance completely independently of cup wins, cups wins add no value to the discussion.

 

[The Panther]

This may be my favorite all time post on hfboards.

Prime Lidstrom, a top 5 d-man all-time who retired only 5 years ago, would get schooled by Gaudreau because of evolution, because movie remakes.

Yes, it's got to a be top-five post. Well done there, young sir! (Not to mention the remakes suck compared to the originals.)

I'm finding it amusing that Lidstrom is now an old-man of the ancient past who couldn't compete against today's players. Crosby will be next.

As we all know, Lidstrom has schooled Crosby before. And Gretzky schooled Lidstrom at times in the early-90s. And Potvin/Bossy schooled Gretzky. And Lafleur/Robinson schooled them. And so on.

By the way, did anyone see that Karate Kid "remake" with Jackie Chan? That was awful.

 

[joe dirte]

That's great, but it's not what we are talking about. If he played better and won the cup, yes, his performance would have been better. The point being made is that cup wins don't affect performance, and since you can judge performance completely independently of cup wins, cups wins add no value to the discussion.

I don't think you can separate them. someone playing so damn well they lead their team to a cup is much more impressive than someone that doesn't lead their team to a cup. it's a more impressive performance. a performance that adds to ones legacy. you can't look at them entirely independently because the performances lead to the legacies.

i feel like you're trying to argue that the performance of a team has nothing to do with the performance of the players on that team.
in regards to lidstrom, when you look at the 4 cups he won, over those 4 playoff runs combined there wasn't a single player that contributed more to those 4 wins than him, in terms of playoff performances. his legacy is built on those performances, which led to cups, along with his insane dominance at every area of the ice for over a decade.

its not like players that win cups but really aren't that great have some great legacy to follow. no one is looking at Jeff beukeboom and his multiple cups with multiple teams and thinking hes got some great legacy. his performances never justified it. lidstrom many outstanding performances led to many stanley cups. you cant brush that aside.

 

[Micklebot]

I don't think you can separate them. someone playing so damn well they lead their team to a cup is much more impressive than someone that doesn't lead their team to a cup. it's a more impressive performance. a performance that adds to ones legacy. you can't look at them entirely independently because the performances lead to the legacies.

i feel like you're trying to argue that the performance of a team has nothing to do with the performance of the players on that team.
in regards to lidstrom, when you look at the 4 cups he won, over those 4 playoff runs combined there wasn't a single player that contributed more to those 4 wins than him, in terms of playoff performances. his legacy is built on those performances, which led to cups, along with his insane dominance at every area of the ice for over a decade.

its not like players that win cups but really aren't that great have some great legacy to follow. no one is looking at Jeff beukeboom and his multiple cups with multiple teams and thinking hes got some great legacy. his performances never justified it. lidstrom many outstanding performances led to many stanley cups. you cant brush that aside.

No, the point I'm making is there are 60 mins in a game and 17 other skaters on the team. Pronger is one man, but the other 17 and the roughly 30+ mins where he isn't on the ice has something to do with the end result of the game. If you can't see that, not sure we can continue here. You can evaluate players performance towards that end result independent of the end result, so why bring up the end result other than to try and confuse maters.

 

[joe dirte]

No, the point I'm making is there are 60 mins in a game and 17 other skaters on the team. Pronger is one man, but the other 17 and the roughly 30+ mins where he isn't on the ice has something to do with the end result of the game. If you can't see that, not sure we can continue here. You can evaluate players performance towards that end result independent of the end result, so why bring up the end result other than to try and confuse maters.

you can't evaluate performances independent of the end result though. players like pronger and lidstrom MADE the end result what it was.

 

[Micklebot]

you can't evaluate performances independent of the end result though. players like pronger and lidstrom MADE the end result what it was.

Yes you can... players can play like utter crap and the goalie gets the shutout to win the game. There you go. One guy played great, while 18 others didn't. That was easy.

 

[Micklebot]

Nice clear by Ceci to kill off the penalty.

 

[joe dirte]

Yes you can... players can play like utter crap and the goalie gets the shutout to win the game. There you go. One guy played great, while 18 others didn't. That was easy.

yeah and had he done that enough times times in the playoffs that his team won a cup that would make it one of the best peformances of all time.

hell of a perdormance. hell of a legacy he is building. enough performances like that and he builds himself a legacy like pronger or lidstrom.

 

[Future GOAT]

At this point the only thing making him inferior is lack of years played and by some people's standards maybe Cups won. By the end of Karlsson's career he will probably be comparable to Lidstrom if he's not considered better.

 

[Micklebot]

yeah and had he done that enough times times in the playoffs that his team won a cup that would make it one of the best peformances of all time.

Ok. But based on the merit of his play, not the end result. Alternatively, the oppositions goalie can play like crap. Team wins the cup because the opposition can't save a beach ball. Again, you can and absolutely should judge players by their actual play, not the end result.

 

[joe dirte]

Ok. But based on the merit of his play, not the end result. Alternatively, the oppositions goalie can play like crap. Team wins the cup because the opposition can't save a beach ball. Again, you can and absolutely should judge players by their actual play, not the end result.

they're not independent. you can't look at them as such. crazy thing. great performances lead to great results.

 

[Micklebot]

they're not independent. you can't look at them as such. crazy thing. great performances lead to great results.

A great performance contributes to the end result, but the end result is not dependent on it. You can judge a performance without looking at the end result too, which would be the preferred way of doing things because you may (and your case, apparently are) become biased if you know the result.

Look at it this way; if you watched a tape of a players game, where all you saw was his shifts and nothing else, and you didn't see the score, your evaluation of his play should be the same regardless of what happened during that game when he wasn't on the ice (because you didn't see it). Those 30-40 mins he didn't play in could result in the game being a win, or a lose, but that players performance didn't change and neither should your evaluation of the players performance. The players performance can and does influence the end result, but the end result can not influence a players performance.

 

[Agent Zub]

Nice bounce back game from karlsson. Still not his normal ability, but he is still 2nd in point per game in the nhl. dudes just a hockey savant

 

[Agent Zub]

like how tf are you in a slump and still manage to be 2nd in ppg?

 

[Grimm]

I love how defense in today's world means shiny corsi #s and points. The word says defense in it. Not who gets 5 PP mins/game but is mediocre in his own zone.

This isn't close. Karlsson will finish top 10 all time probably. He'll never touch Orr, Lidstrom, Bourque, the top 3. Let's remove cups from it all. Start piling up the Norris Trophies...

 

[Agent Zub]

I love how defense in today's world means shiny corsi #s and points. The word says defense in it. Not who gets 5 PP mins/game but is mediocre in his own zone.

This isn't close. Karlsson will finish top 10 all time probably. He'll never touch Orr, Lidstrom, Bourque, the top 3. Let's remove cups from it all. Start piling up the Norris Trophies...

eh? Karlssons defence last year was just as impressive as his offence

Ottawa: 47GF 50GA
Karlsson ON: 32GF 16 GA
Karlsson OFF: 15 GF 34 GA

these are Karlsson on ice/ off ice splits from the playoffs. is this a mediocre player on the defensive side of the puck to you?

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Karlsson is on pace for zero goals and 123 assists (p.r. 82 games).

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

eh? Karlssons defence last year was just as impressive as his offence

Ottawa: 47GF 50GA
Karlsson ON: 32GF 16 GA
Karlsson OFF: 15 GF 34 GA

these are Karlsson on ice/ off ice splits from the playoffs. is this a mediocre player on the defensive side of the puck to you?

Wait...are you saying goal differentials matter now?

After we just spent how many pages crapping on +/-?

hmm, interesting.

 

[the_fan]

The hair!

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

The hair!

Now that...Lidstrom has absolutely NOTHING on EK's flow. Nothing.

 

[the_fan]

Now that...Lidstrom has absolutely NOTHING on EK's flow. Nothing.

I know, I thought the question was what make EK superior to Lidstrom