Posts
Niklas Lidstrom is just a wonderful hockey player. If you ever get a chance to watch him live, or even just watching a Wings game on TV, try watching Lidstrom instead puck every time #5 is out on the ice. He is so flawless in his positioning and his execution that you will so much about the game simply by observation.In theDec 18th, 2007 issue, The Hockey News crowned Niklas Lidstrom as the best European born and trained player in NHL history. Non NHL players, such as Soviet era stars like Valeri Kharlamov and Vladislav Tretiak, were not considered. Neither were players who were born in Europe but trained in Canada, such as Stan Mikita.
To be named the top European player of all time is quite a feather in Lidstrom's cap. There is no shortage of candidates, including fellow defenders Borje Salming, Sergei Zubov, Viacheslav Fetisov and Teppo Numminen, super scorers like Jari Kurri, Peter Stastny, Jaromir Jagr, Pavel Bure, Peter Bondra and Teemu Selanne, and complete threats like Igor Larionov, Sergei Fedorov, Peter Forsberg and Mats Sundin.
Lidstrom has been getting a lot of ink lately, and it is about time. But I do find it interesting that there is a growing movement to crown Lidstrom as the second greatest defenseman of all time, behind the incomparable Bobby Orr of course.
Now traditionally the label goes to Montreal great Doug Harvey, with real old timer Eddie Shore also ranked right up there. More modern contenders include Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin, Raymond Bourque, and Paul Coffey.
Now I'm not too sure Lidstrom truly ranks. Back in August I looked at the top 36 players of all time, and included Lidstrom as the 8th best defender behind Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Fetisov, Shore, Potvin, and Robinson. Red Kelly and Dit Clapper both outranked Lidstrom in my listing back then, too. Both were superstar defensemen who also were superstar forwards.
I'm not prepared to re-open that debate right now, but I'm also not prepared to declare Lidstrom to be a better player than Doug Harvey. I don't really have an issue with anyone slotting him as high as 3rd overall.
In August I ranked Bourque in the three spot, which is interesting, because if there was one player in hockey history that could be a carbon copy of Niklas Lidstrom it is Ray Bourque. I'm really high on that comparison because they played very similar styles. Perhaps Bourque was a bit more flashy offensively, but he played in an era that demanded it, but otherwise both are near perfect defenders.
So let's compare the legacies of Bourque and Lidstrom. Lidstrom's career stats are shown as of game 32 of the 2007-08 season.
Again, I'm not too concerned about the scoring stats. Bourque played in a higher offensive era, and a 37 year old Lidstrom still has probably at least 3 more solid years to add to his offensive numbers. This year he's right near the top of the defenseman scoring race again this year, too.
I've highlighted the last two comparables. Both players sit at 5 Norris Trophies each, signifying how many times in their career that they were honoured as the best defenseman in the game. Barring injury, Lidstrom very likely could add another title this season, and who knows how many more. If he were to somehow challenge Bobby Orr's 8 titles or Doug Harvey's 7, then I think I'd be ready to give Lidstrom the nod over Bourque.An interesting way to break the current 5-5 deadlock is to look at the number of times each player finished as the runner up in Norris Trophy balloting - Bourque 6 times, Lidstrom 3.
Another pretty telling stat for me is post season All Star awards. In 19 of his 22 seasons Bourque was either on the first or second team, including in each of his first 15 NHL seasons. Lidstrom has "only" been honoured 8 times in 15 complete seasons, with more sure to follow. But it took him 7 years before his first all star nod.
It is the only statistical anomaly between these two great defenders. A case could even be made to suggest Bourque faced stiffer competition for All Star honours. As such, I conclude Ray Bourque's legacy ranks him ahead of the still growing legacy of Niklas Lidstrom. But only for the time being.
11 comments:
How are and how were all stars chosen to play? Does the all star game really show who is better?
Yzerman never once made either the First or Second All Star Team.
i like both players alot,but you have to go with ray.i'm glad you included the times they were runners up,ray got hose'd more than a few times.i'd put niklas ahead of anyone but orr and bourque!(never saw harvey play)
I think you leave out an important factor when you compare Ray and Nick. Ray wore the "C" and was usually the best player on the ice for the Bruins for most of his career there so he was always in the limelight and forefront so therefore well known. When you look at Nick and see he played behind one of the top 5 all time (IMO)in Steve Yzerman and the SLEW of top talent Detroit has had during Nick's career, its easy to understand why he was overlooked. After this season you add a 6th Norris, already a Conn Smyth and now the first born and trained European captain to win a Stanley Cup and he is still playing at the top of his game, he's exceeded Ray in all aspects except points and seasons. I think the choice is easier to make now and clearly should be noted as one of the Top 3 of all time, if not Top 2.
RyGuy: Yzerman was a first team all star in 99/00. http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2000.html
he's not north american therefore never got the due respect. nuff' said
Has anyone considered that Bourque played in an era with a lot of other great defensemen? The reason Bourque had only five Norrises is that he wasn't competing against a bare handful of greats like Lidstrom has. When he broke in, he was competing against Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin, Borje Salming and Brad Park ... then it was Paul Coffey, Rod Langway, Al MacInnis, Larry Murphy, Chris Chelios, Brian Leetch and Scott Stevens.
No way you rank Lidstrom against Orr, Shore, Bourque or Harvey.
When there career's are over Lidstrom is the clear winner. Being the first Euro Captain to win the cup gives him the clear nod in my opinion. Furthermore I dare say if he wins a cup this year (09) it'd be silly not to include him top three all time D wise.
Bubba will always be ranked higher than lidstrom. Why Because of 21 yrs playing at a high level.
When he won the Stanley Cup with Colorado, They were stacked but Ray played great in the regular season and playoffs. His consistent
play for 21yrs is unmatched. Ray could do more than Nick. Plus I had the privilidge of spending some time with Ray. He's a great guy. Very humble. He's a role model.
There are some pretty silly comments above; for instance, what does Lidstrom being a European-born captain have to do with whether he's better than anyone?
Now Lidstrom is an all-time great, no error, but the proof of the pudding is this: Lidstrom's first Norris came only in Bourque's final season. In the nine previous years they played head-to-head, Bourque won two Norrises to his none. Bourque was a Second Team All-Star at age 19; at 19, Lidstrom was still years away from the NHL. Bourque was a season-ending All-Star his first fifteen seasons. Lidstrom was only once his first six. They're both +24 a season over their careers, with Lidstrom playing for much stronger teams, so the question is this: is Lidstrom so hugely better defensively than Bourque was to offset that Bourque scored nearly twice as many goals over his career?
No. Not remotely. Bourque competed for awards and honors against some of the greatest defensemen in the game's history and outdid them all. Lidstrom has won most of his silverware against a weak field; who among Lidstrom's contemporaries the last ten years would you say is the equal of Al MacInnis, Scott Stevens, Paul Coffey, Brian Leetch, Larry Murphy or Chris Chelios in their primes?
The four greatest defensemen in hockey history are named Orr, Shore, Harvey and Bourque. Lidstrom sure is great, but he's not their equal.
Old thread, I know . . . but a few years on, it's worth revisiting this . . .
I used to think Bourque was better, by virtue of the fact that he played with weaker teams throughout most of the last half of his career and yet could still dominate a game defensively so completely that his team had a chance to win in spite of itself.
But what's with this argument that Lidstrom won his Norris' against weaker competition? What about Pronger, Blake, Niedermayer, Stevens, Chara, or his own teammate Rafalski?
But things like All Star games, Norris Trophies and other awards don't mean jack; and the end of the day, those are popularity contests. And like most sports popularity contests, guys who do flashy shit like score, skate fast, hit hard or have a 100mph slap shot have a big advantage, because you can see those things.
I'd even argue that considering goals and assists should be secondary when comparing defenseman, because very often a defenseman's value can't be measured by what numbers he puts up, what you see him do on TV or how much he gets talked about.
Similar to a ref, sometimes the the way you know a guy is top notch is when you don't notice him. And if he played for the Blue Jackets, you probably wouldn't notice him; because what he does better than anyone else, maybe anyone else ever, is that he doesn't make mistakes.
Now, lots of defensemen are good at that. But most of those guys are conservative, defense-first, rim-it-off-the-glass-and-out-type guys. But Lidstrom does things, both offensively and defensively that most other guys just can't do: Taking away gaps before an opposing forward even knows there could be one; making perfect, clean, on-tape breakout passes to forwards skating at full speed--while two forecheckers are draped all over him; foiling chip-and-chases by knocking the chip out of mid-air as it's going past him. And have you ever seen him get beat one-on-one? Ever? Even Bourque got beat one-on-one once in awhile.
Another thing he does better than anyone else is that he gets shots through to the net. Bourque always did too; but he played in a different era. Because of the change a few years back in the way rules are enforced, almost every team's defensive system places a high premium on filling shooting lanes, kind of like some of the old Russian teams used to do. How many playoff games in the last five years turned on one team's inability to get shots through to the net? This is a huge deal in the NHL now, because besides not having a chance to go in the goal, when that shot doesn't get through, it ruins the offensive possesion at least 50% of the time. But Lidstrom almost always gets his shot through.
You could write a textbook based on all those little things that he does as well or better than anyone, that are rarely noticed, and are never recorded in the stat sheet. But the really incredible thing about Lidstrom is that he's done all this little-noticed, but critically important stuff, night in and night out, for 15+ years.
Yeah, he's played for the Red Wings, arguably the best franchise in all of sports right now. But so what? Are you going to argue that Derek Jeter is any less great because he played for the Yankees, or that Joe Montana wasn't really that great because after all, he had Rice and Taylor to throw to all those years? I mean, I suppose there's some merit in arguments like that occasionally, but I think they're more applicable to guys who truly are overrated because they played with great teams. I think because he plays for a great team (and also because of the position he plays) Lidstrom is actually significantly underrated. I mean, an argument can be made--much as it is for guys like Montana, Jeter, Gretzky, etc.--that the (or at least a) primary reason the Red Wings have been so good for so long is Lidstrom himself, and that if he wasn't as consistently dominant as he is, this whole argument would be moot.
Post a Comment