What makes Erik Karlsson inferior to Niklas Lidstrom?

[saskriders]

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

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

hmm, interesting.

+/- is a garbage stat, but when compared to the players own team it is more valuable then compared to just other players from different teams.

 

[MisterNoItAll]

Everything.

 

[ScoreZeGoals]

My eyes

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

+/- is a garbage stat, but when compared to the players own team it is more valuable then compared to just other players from different teams.

Hey, I 100% agree with that. And that it needs to be contextualized.

However....*looks at last 300 posts*

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

Hey, I 100% agree with that. And that it needs to be contextualized.

However....*looks at last 300 posts*

funny, thats exactly what I just did on you

 

[joe dirte]

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.

well yes, it would change. no matter howbm great someone plays if they didn't achieve the end result they wanted it wasn't good enough.

 

[Micklebot]

well yes, it would change. no matter howbm great someone plays if they didn't achieve the end result they wanted it wasn't good enough.

I think were done at this point. I will never agree that the quality of a players actual on ice performance changes based on your knowledge of he end result of the game. You are admitting that you allow something other than what the player does to affect your evaluation of what he did. This isn't Schrödinger's hockey rink (Quantum hockey!), Pronger's performance is in a state of good and bad until you observe the end result of the game...

 

[joe dirte]

I think were done at this point. I will never agree that the quality of a players actual on ice performance changes based on your knowledge of he end result of the game. You are admitting that you allow something other than what the player does to affect your evaluation of what he did. This isn't Schrödinger's hockey rink (Quantum hockey!), Pronger's performance is in a state of good and bad until you observe the end result of the game...

not good and bad. great. and even greater.

and it's not about what he doesn't do. it's whether he did enough to win.

 

[umma gumma]

well yes, it would change. no matter howbm great someone plays if they didn't achieve the end result they wanted it wasn't good enough.

That's a pretty narrow way of looking at things. A guy scores 4 goals and 4 assists and has the game of his life but loses in OT because whenever he was on the bench his goalie couldn't make a save...are you really going to say he wasn't good enough?

 

[Agent Zub]

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

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

hmm, interesting.

I think an argument can be made that they matter relative to your teammates. Especially when the player in question is the #1 d and plays 30 minutes a night.

 

[joe dirte]

That's a pretty narrow way of looking at things. A guy scores 4 goals and 4 assists and has the game of his life but loses in OT because whenever he was on the bench his goalie couldn't make a save...are you really going to say he wasn't good enough?

obviously he wasnt good enough to win the game. was he amazing? yes. would it be even better if he was that much better and they won the game? of course.

 

[Micklebot]

not good and bad. great. and even greater.

and it's not about what he doesn't do. it's whether he did enough to win.

Whether his performance was good enough to win and how good his performance was are independent of one another. The greatest individual performance of all time might not be enough to win, because hockey is a team sport. Like I said, I think we're done. this isn't going anywhere it seems, and we're getting off topic.

On topic, imo the difference between Karlsson and Lidstrom boils down to consistency.

Lidstrom was always playing at or near peak performance. you new exactly what you'd get from him every night.

Karlsson has been far more up and down, partially thanks to injuries mind you. At his best (like last years playoffs) He's been an absolute for on both ends of the ice, and certainly is in the discussion with Lidstrom. But, when he's off, it's not close, even if his offense is still out of this world.

This season, he simply hasn't been himself. I though his performance was better last season, and it's not particularly close (even though the team is doing better, and he's scoring more points, funny that). Hopefully he can work through whatever is bothering him (missed training camp, says his ankle still doesn't feel the same and his pivots look awkward at times, decision making has been questionable some games and a bad flu seems to be going through the room and he's the latest victim). If he cleans those issues up, I'll be ready to discuss him in relation to Lidstrom, but at this moment, he's more in Leetch or Gonchar on steroids territory.

 

[zytz]

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.

I don't think Karlsson will ever rise to the level of Lidstrom- and here's why: Lidstrom played easily top 5 all-time caliber defense against some of the most prolific scorers in the game's history, and achieved a pedigree of consistent excellence in comparison to several contemporaries whom were legends in their own right. Lidstrom's competition for the Norris each year is an order of magnitude greater than the competition Karlsson faces today. If you look at some of Lidstrom's most notable contemporaries you'll find guys like Niedermayer, Stevens, Pronger, Blake, Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch, Ray Bourque. These are all players that fit into an exceptionally elite class... like top 20-ish all time defenders perhaps? Karlsson simply doesn't have contemporaries with the same pedigrees. More recently you could maybe make the arguments that players like Weber, Doughty, Keith, Subban, and Karlsson might sniff the level of some of those all-time greats if you consider only their primes... but none of them have achieved the level of notoriety that Lidstrom's peers have. And by the end of his career, not only had Lidstrom kept up with several of the greatest defenders to ever play the game, he'd largely surpassed them and left the majority in the dust behind him. Karlsson right now might be as a god among men, but Lidstrom was a god among legends.

 

[NyQuil]

Well, at Karlsson's age, there's no way that anyone would have predicted that Lidstrom could have risen to the level of Lidstrom.

He won his first Norris at the age of 30.

That's what happens when you compare a guy in his mid 20's with a retired HoFer.

We don't know what kind of competition Karlsson will have over the remainder of his career, so it's a bit of an odd argument to make.

 

[joe dirte]

Whether his performance was good enough to win and how good his performance was are independent of one another. The greatest individual performance of all time might not be enough to win, because hockey is a team sport. Like I said, I think we're done. this isn't going anywhere it seems, and we're getting off topic.

On topic, imo the difference between Karlsson and Lidstrom boils down to consistency.

Lidstrom was always playing at or near peak performance. you new exactly what you'd get from him every night.

Karlsson has been far more up and down, partially thanks to injuries mind you. At his best (like last years playoffs) He's been an absolute for on both ends of the ice, and certainly is in the discussion with Lidstrom. But, when he's off, it's not close, even if his offense is still out of this world.

This season, he simply hasn't been himself. I though his performance was better last season, and it's not particularly close (even though the team is doing better, and he's scoring more points, funny that). Hopefully he can work through whatever is bothering him (missed training camp, says his ankle still doesn't feel the same and his pivots look awkward at times, decision making has been questionable some games and a bad flu seems to be going through the room and he's the latest victim). If he cleans those issues up, I'll be ready to discuss him in relation to Lidstrom, but at this moment, he's more in Leetch or Gonchar on steroids territory.

you've said this like 5 times but keep replying.

if his performance didn't meet the main objective I don't understand how you think that's irrelevant.

 

[umma gumma]

you've said this like 5 times but keep replying.

if his performance didn't meet the main objective I don't understand how you think that's irrelevant.

Its simple really. There things a player can't control (a teammate's performance, coach's decision, etc...) that influence the end result. I don't understand how you think that is irrelevant.

 

[authentic]

Whether his performance was good enough to win and how good his performance was are independent of one another. The greatest individual performance of all time might not be enough to win, because hockey is a team sport. Like I said, I think we're done. this isn't going anywhere it seems, and we're getting off topic.

On topic, imo the difference between Karlsson and Lidstrom boils down to consistency.

Lidstrom was always playing at or near peak performance. you new exactly what you'd get from him every night.

Karlsson has been far more up and down, partially thanks to injuries mind you. At his best (like last years playoffs) He's been an absolute for on both ends of the ice, and certainly is in the discussion with Lidstrom. But, when he's off, it's not close, even if his offense is still out of this world.

This season, he simply hasn't been himself. I though his performance was better last season, and it's not particularly close (even though the team is doing better, and he's scoring more points, funny that). Hopefully he can work through whatever is bothering him (missed training camp, says his ankle still doesn't feel the same and his pivots look awkward at times, decision making has been questionable some games and a bad flu seems to be going through the room and he's the latest victim). If he cleans those issues up, I'll be ready to discuss him in relation to Lidstrom, but at this moment, he's more in Leetch or Gonchar on steroids territory.

That's the most impressive thing about Lidstrom, his consistency from game to game and season to season combined with his health and longevity is unmatched by any player in history. As is the case with many players he is compared to I would take Karlsson on his best day over Lidstrom, but not by much.

 

[joe dirte]

That's the most impressive thing about Lidstrom, his consistency from game to game and season to season combined with his health and longevity is unmatched by any player in history. As is the case with many players he is compared to I would take Karlsson on his best day over Lidstrom, but not my much.

lidstrom was elite at both ends of the rink. for the majority of his career. in fact I would say among the top 3 in the NHL on both ends. the only other dman in the last 40 years that can say that is pronger. boutique maybe borderline. but pronger did it for a short period. lidstrom did it for most of his career. imo lidstrom is the second best dman in history. although I don't think its true I think you can actually make an argument for the best dman in history. per was the best. obviously. for every argument for lidstrom there are 2 for orr.

 

[Micklebot]

you've said this like 5 times but keep replying.

if his performance didn't meet the main objective I don't understand how you think that's irrelevant.

Because we are evaluating the performance, not whether it`s enough to meet the objective.

If I run a mile in 4 mins, that`s my performance. Somebody else running the mile in 3 mins or 5 mins doesn`t change my performance, even if it means I won, or came in 2nd. My performance is independent of the result, though the result is the summation of everybody's performance. I didn't run faster because my competition finished in 5 mins, and I didn't run slower if my competition ran it in 3, my performance remains the same, I ran a mile in 4 mins. If I lose, the race by 30 secs, then a week later evidence is found that the winner actually jumped in a taxi or took a short cut, my performance doesn't change, but all the sudden I'm the winner.

Like I said, I'm done here and won't be drawn back into this conversation (this time for sure!). Somebody else can keep up the good fight if you continue to question the logic....

 

[authentic]

lidstrom was elite at both ends of the rink. for the majority of his career. in fact I would say among the top 3 in the NHL on both ends. the only other dman in the last 40 years that can say that is pronger. boutique maybe borderline. but pronger did it for a short period. lidstrom did it for most of his career. imo lidstrom is the second best dman in history. although I don't think its true I think you can actually make an argument for the best dman in history. per was the best. obviously. for every argument for lidstrom there are 2 for orr.

Per and Boutique are probably 1 and 2, but not my much. I guess we're both having troubles typing today.

 

[Micklebot]

Personally, I have Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. Still elite defensively, significantly better offensively, less reliant on the PP for production, less support from teammates, adds physical dimension.

 

[Agent Zub]

well yes, it would change. no matter howbm great someone plays if they didn't achieve the end result they wanted it wasn't good enough.

Goalie makes 89/90 saves. The only goal that goes in was a deflected where he was screened. He loses 1-0 with his team only generating 20 shots.

Do you really think the goalie wasn't good enough? Or maybe it had more to do with his team? Because you know, it's a team sport.

 

[authentic]

Personally, I have Bourque ahead of Lidstrom. Still elite defensively, significantly better offensively, less reliant on the PP for production, less support from teammates, adds physical dimension.

I think his offense can be overrated in comparison to Lidstrom (though still clearly better) because of the era he played in, compared to their peers they are actually pretty close there. There is a noticeable gap between the two defensively though, Lidstrom may have a bigger edge there actually than Bourque does offensively, but Bourque is the only defenseman in league history who can matche his longevity and consistency from season to season. I always go back and forth between who I think was better but in the playoffs I would probably take Lidstrom at his peak. It would've been pretty awesome to see Bourque on dominant teams in his prime though, he spent a lot of prime years on bad or very average teams.

 

[Micklebot]

I think his offense can be overrated in comparison to Lidstrom (though still clearly better) because of the era he played in, compared to their peers they are actually pretty close there. There is a noticeable gap between the two defensively though, Lidstrom may have a bigger edge there actually than Bourque does offensively, but Bourque is the only defenseman in league history who can matche his longevity and consistency from season to season. I always go back and forth between who I think was better but in the playoffs I would probably take Lidstrom at his peak.

Looking at era adjusted numbers (not a perfect science, but it`s what we got), Bourque has about a 15% edge in production over Lidstrom over their careers and lead his team in scoring 5 times. That's pretty significant imo.

I don't have an issue with those who think Lidstrom was superior, I just happen to disagree.

 

[joe dirte]

Because we are evaluating the performance, not whether it`s enough to meet the objective.

If I run a mile in 4 mins, that`s my performance. Somebody else running the mile in 3 mins or 5 mins doesn`t change my performance, even if it means I won, or came in 2nd. My performance is independent of the result, though the result is the summation of everybody's performance. I didn't run faster because my competition finished in 5 mins, and I didn't run slower if my competition ran it in 3, my performance remains the same, I ran a mile in 4 mins. If I lose, the race by 30 secs, then a week later evidence is found that the winner actually jumped in a taxi or took a short cut, my performance doesn't change, but all the sudden I'm the winner.

Like I said, I'm done here and won't be drawn back into this conversation (this time for sure!). Somebody else can keep up the good fight if you continue to question the logic....

the 4 minute mile for 2nd place is not as good a performance as the 4 minute mile to win it.