What makes Erik Karlsson inferior to Niklas Lidstrom?

[NyQuil]

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

Please, that would be like blaming Usain Bolt for not winning the 4 x 100 relay if his teammates sucked.

 

[joe dirte]

Goalie makes 89/90 saves. The only goal that goes in was a deflected where he was screened. His 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.

no it was not good enough to win. it would be more impressive to me if they won 2 to 1.

 

[joe dirte]

Please, that would be like blaming Usain Bolt for not winning the 4 x 100 relay if his teammates sucked.

I'm going to be more impressed with the team that won than I am with usain bolt.

 

[Agent Zub]

no it was not good enough to win. it would be more impressive to me if they won 2 to 1.

That makes no sense. It's the exact same performance in both scenarios.

I don't think you understand the "team" part of a team sport.

 

[NyQuil]

I'm going to be more impressed with the team that won than I am with usain bolt.

And you're going to hold it against him when they talk about the best sprinters of all time?

Give your head a shake.

 

[joe dirte]

And you're going to hold it against him when they talk about the best sprinters of all time?

Give your head a shake.

if the next guy comes along and has similar accolades, but anchors the team he's on to a win, of course I am. why wouldn't I? he managed something bolt didnt.

 

[TheAngryHank]

One is an all time great,one isn't,how is this a question?

 

[Snuuzi]

A bit hard to compare them when they play and played so different. Personally I like to watch Karlsson's offensive style of play more. But if I think back to how Lidstrom played it makes me think he was on a whole other level. Also how exactly do you measure a hockey player when its a teamgame? Is it just stats and rewards influenced by personal opinions or also other things like how players affect other players around them? Leadership? Class? Because imo Lidstrom wins that by far.

 

[Eisen]

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 wouldn't say Bourque is better offensively. The system in Boston was totally different and the entire O ran through Bourque. Bourque has an advantage in longevity though. He hit the ground running while Lidström took some time. That's the reason I have Bourque ahead of him. To me, he's a little worse on the D, about the same on O but he did it for much longer.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

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.

True, but he also had 3 runner-up finishes the three preceding years, and the two years before that he was a top 6 finisher. It's not like he just appeared at age 30.

 

[Sentinel]

I wouldn't say Bourque is better offensively. The system in Boston was totally different and the entire O ran through Bourque. Bourque has an advantage in longevity though. He hit the ground running while Lidström took some time. That's the reason I have Bourque ahead of him. To me, he's a little worse on the D, about the same on O but he did it for much longer.

1. MUCH longer?
2. So Norrises and Cups don't count at all? How about playoff performance? Ray can't hold a candle to Niklas.

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

1. MUCH longer?
2. So Norrises and Cups don't count at all? How about playoff performance? Ray can't hold a candle to Niklas.

5 Norris Trophies
19 times finishing in the top 5 (Lidstrom has 13)
22 times finishing in the top 10; his entire career, by the way (Lidstrom has 16)
.84 points-per-game scoring rate in the playoffs (Lidstrom has .69)

They hold a candle, at the very least, IMO.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

What makes Erik Karlsson inferior to Niklas Lidstrom?

Well, a good place to start is Lidstrom is a top-10 all-time defenseman while Karlsson is a Phil Housley clone.

 

[Eisen]

1. MUCH longer?
2. So Norrises and Cups don't count at all? How about playoff performance? Ray can't hold a candle to Niklas.

I don't count cups. Almost never, actually. Norrises do count but competition counts too, and Bourque's was stiffer than Lidström's. And five or six more elite years is much longer. There are players whose entire prime doesn't last six years. For the rest I point to Dr. Jan Itor.
For what it's worth, I have them within one spot of each other in an all time ranking, both top5. Lidström was one of my favourite players (love the gentlemanly defenders, checking is easy (which is strange, because I also love Kasparaitis)).

 

[NoMessi]

There definitely is some sort of correlation between physicality and post concussion syndrome, but my guess is that it's very insignificant. It's mainly luck that determines if a player will have concussion issues or not.

The NBA is physical, but there are no concussions because of how the game is played. There are no fist fights or deliberate hits.

Haha no, just no. Some bigs play tough against each other, but otherwise just No no no no no no no no

 

[Marky9er]

How many points would Karlsson have to put up to compensate for the defensive handicap he clearly has to Lidstrom? It's well over 100 points considering Lidstrom was good for 80 points. They are both amazing players but Lidstrom didn't have risk in his game.

 

[AvsCOL]

I think the issue with comparing a guy to Lindstrom is that we're comparing his entire body of work. Believe it or not, Lidstrom didn't win his first Norris until age 30, but went on to win 7 times in the next 10 years.

I think very highly of both guys, but they're different animals if you ask me. Lidstrom was in my opinion the best defensive player in NHL history. His positioning and stick work were second to none. Karlsson is perhaps the best offensive defenseman we've seen, so it's really a tough point to argue.

 

[Agent Zub]

How many points would Karlsson have to put up to compensate for the defensive handicap he clearly has to Lidstrom? It's well over 100 points considering Lidstrom was good for 80 points. They are both amazing players but Lidstrom didn't have risk in his game.

He was good for 80 points because he hit that mark once? Lol

 

[Marky9er]

He was good for 80 points because he hit that mark once? Lol

Admittedly, I've never looked up Lidstrom's stats for any reason. Even if you make that number 60 I think it'd be required 100+ points to compensate for defensive handicap. I have zero doubt that if you trade Lidstrom for Karlsson somehow through back to the future technology Detroit's 3 cups become 0. Congrats Colorado on the dynasty. May as well compare Paul Coffey, that's more apples to apples.

 

[sparxx87]

Isn’t this one a pretty simple answer?

 

[Agent Zub]

Admittedly, I've never looked up Lidstrom's stats for any reason. Even if you make that number 60 I think it'd be required 100+ points to compensate for defensive handicap. I have zero doubt that if you trade Lidstrom for Karlsson somehow through back to the future technology Detroit's 3 cups become 0. Congrats Colorado on the dynasty. May as well compare Paul Coffey, that's more apples to apples.

Nostalgia at its best.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

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.

The physical dimension is overrated, it is just one way to get results. Doesn't make those results better.

I agree about Bourque being better overall. He was consistently elite in a way Lidstrom was not, with better competition to boot.

 

[ErikKarlsson]

Lidstrom is the goat

 

[Micklebot]

The physical dimension is overrated, it is just one way to get results. Doesn't make those results better.

I agree about Bourque being better overall. He was consistently elite in a way Lidstrom was not, with better competition to boot.

Physicality is a tool, just like any other. More tools makes a player more versitilte, which has value. in and of itself, it doesn't make him better, it's just one consideration.

It's same as though you were to say Hockey IQ is overrated, it's just one way to get results, it doesn't make those results better.

 

[BruinDust]

1. MUCH longer?
2. So Norrises and Cups don't count at all? How about playoff performance? Ray can't hold a candle to Niklas.

That's comical. Like comparing Lidstrom to Karlsson, Lidstrom to Bourque are very different styles of players. And Bourque's defensive ability is very underrated because he was so good on offense. But people forget the guy was 5-11 but well over 200 lbs, built like brick house. Had that low center of gravity and could muscle most guys off the puck.

But as far as individual greatness comparisons go, Bourque is on par with or perhaps even exceeds Lidstrom. This is an interesting article on how great Bourque was, how he was overshadowed a bit playing his prime in the same era as Gretzky/Lemieux/Messier.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-nhl-awards-look-like-using-mlb-model/

"While running through the research for this piece, one name showed up more than any other. It’s a guy who already has plenty of hardware from a legendary career. But if he’d played in a world where the NHL split its awards by conference, he’d have a whole lot more. So let’s talk about Ray Bourque.
In the real world, Bourque won the Norris Trophy five times between 1987 and 1994. That was an impressive run, one that slots him behind only Orr, Lidstrom and Doug Harvey on the all-time list. But split the trophy by conference, and Bourque jumps to the top of the leaderboard by adding an astounding six more Norris Trophies. He wins the Prince of Wales version in 1982, 1985 and 1993, then adds Eastern Conference honors in 1995, 1996 and 1999. (He nearly wins the Western Conference version in 2001 too, but finishes second to Lidstrom.) That makes it a ridiculous 11 times that Norris voters thought Ray Bourque was the best defenceman in his conference.
But it gets even better for Bourque, because in our alternate universe, voters eventually get bored of handing them the Norris and start voting him for the Hart Trophy too. He’d have been the Eastern MVP in 1987, 1990 and 1991.
Mix in the real-world Calder that he picked up in 1980, and Bourque winds up with 15 different individual awards over the course of his career, making him just about the most decorated athlete in pro sports history.
So maybe now we finally know why the NHL never adopted the MLB model. It just wouldn’t have been fair to the guy who had to build Ray Bourque’s trophy case."

Think about that for a second. Bourque would of been the best D-man in his conference in 1982 (at age 21), and the 2nd best in his conference almost 20 years later in his final 2001 season (2nd only to a 30-year old Lidstrom).

He was flat out robbed of a Hart Trophy in 1990 (losing to Messier by a just 2 votes, 227 to 225).

Doesn't even mention his record 1st/2nd team all-star nominations.

Just an unbelievable level of consistently excellent performance over a 20+ year span that we may never see again from a D-man. While he wasn't the best D-man on the planet for his entire 20+ year career, how many guys can honestly say they were among the Top 5 D-men in the game from their very first game until their very last? Other than Orr (and his 9 seasons), none that I can think of.