Lidstrom, overrated greatness?

In a resent post I talked about Nicklas Lidstrom and how his injured knee may hurt his chances at a sixth Norris Trophy. That article got a very interesting and somewhat controversial comment from my old friend and hockey connoisseur, Philip Arvidsson. Philip, a resident of Toronto for many years and currently living in the Netherlands, knows more about this sport than most so-called experts and it’s a pleasure to get his thoughts on the NHL as he is a frequent commentator on my blog. This comment fueled an interesting and heated debate that I decided to post here. I hope to be able to post more "face offs" like this in the future, but here is the premiere!

Philip
To me, Mr. Lidstrom is a complete enigma. The guy gets showered with perks by every hockey writer and critic and Norris Trophies seem to be fedexed to his home on a yearly basis. I've never really understood the Lidstrom hype but that does not mean I'm right.

Niklas
Unless I missunderstood, you say Lidstrom is being handed this trophy every year for lack of a better recipient, an argument I am having massive problems getting my head around. I think the fact that almost every player in the NHL agrees he is the best in the league speaks volumes.

Philip
As far my own humble opinion is concerned, I've never been sold on No. 5. I'm not saying he's not Norris Trophy material but five, six, or even seven of them? More than Ray Bourque, my favorite player? Due to that, coupled with the fact that every time I've seen Lidstrom play for Tre Kronor he appears utterly lost, I find him to be highly overrated.

Niklas
I know you are a Bruins fan (I think everyone reading this blog knows that) and so you favoring Bourque comes as no surprise. So you think the competition was so much tougher back in the day when he reigned?

Philip
I thought about this not too long ago and came up with a theory. Bourque "only" collected five Norris Trophies. But back in his heydays, there were 4 or 5 other "Ray Bourques" such as Brian Leetch, Scott Stevens, Al MacInnis, Chris Chelios, and Paul Coffey. They were all Bourque-caliber players, in their prime at the same time, competing against each other thus the Norris was passed around among them every season. To be fair, Maybe Lidstrom also belongs to that high echelon of d-men but he doesn't have to share the Norris with anyone simply because there are no other defenders of that magnitude in today's game.

Niklas
Perhaps, but does that mean you value Bobby Orr's career any less? He certainly did not have that many oponents of his own caliber. But ok, for arguements sake, Chris Pronger is on par with a guy like Scott Stevens and Scott Niedermayer is even better than his former captain (to me he was always a better leader than defensman). Paul Coffey was a forward in disguise, so out of the 4-5 you mentioned I will agree on only MacInnis, Chelios and Leetch. By the way, not long ago you were telling me what a great player Niedermayer was (which I agreed on).

Philip
I would say Niedermayer MAYBE, but that's it. And yes I also recall sticking up for Niedermayer after his Conn Smythe/Stanley Cup season because you ripped him with the following headline "who cares?". And by the way, Ray Bourque was robbed of the Hart Trophy in 1990!

Niklas
Agreed we're not seeing as large of a group of future Hall of famers today as we did back then, but like I said, how large was that group of top blueliners during Bobby Orr's heydays? Orr is still the best ever in my opinion, just like the lack of "Bourques" doesn't make Lidstrom any less great. About Bourque being robbed, sure, eventhough Gretzky, Lemieux and Messier all had great seasons, the Hart should probably have ended up in Beantown that year.

Philip
Hey, perhaps you're right. Like I said, I'm not sold on the guy but everyone else seems to be. This is why I came up with "theories" to find out if I was wrong and, if so, how wrong was I?

Niklas
Perhaps we will find out in the years to come, perhaps we won’t. We will just have to agree to disagree on the Red Wings captain. I hope you’re not too bummed about the Bruins blowout against Toronto the other night, as we both know, Boston is still a team for the playoffs and the Leafs are not. Be good until next time, Phil.

Philip
Oh, don't even get me started on the Leafs, we'll do them next time. 'Til then, blog hard!

Who is better than Lidstrom?

In an article, ESPN's Scott Burnside suggests that Nicklas Lidstrom will probably be nominated for the Norris Trophy, but, because of his knee injury he may not win what would be his sixth in the category. As he points out, history shows that miss large parts of the season due to injury are less likely to win trophies, and while this may be true, not giving the Norris to Lidstrom would be outright rediculous. Why should he be punished for needing less time to be better than everyone else? To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

To be honest, the reason for Lidstrom not to win isn't even all that valid in this case. Lidstrom has played 62 games, which is just seven less than the league-leading 69 (five Dallas players) and six behind the best defenseman in that category. Despite this, he still leads all defensemen in points. Thats right, he leads. As if that isn't enough, he also leads the entire leauge in plus/minus with +39 and he is 4th in ice time among all skaters. Burnside mentions Pittsburgh's Sergei Gonchar and Habs blueliner Andrei Markov as possible candidates, but while Gonchar is still very inconsistent in my opinion and Markov is a minus player, I find that unlikely. Still, I wouldn't be very surprised if any of the two do appear on the ballot.

Not only do I still consider Lidstrom the strongest, if not the only, candidate for the Norris, I also think he should be seriously considered for the Hart Trophy as well. A few weeks ago coach Mike Babcock made a strong case for his captain as the league MVP simply because he was the best player on the best team in the league. It is true they were the best team, and when he was injured they fell apart. That says it all.

Even if he doesn't get any consideration for the Hart, which he most likely won't, if he doesn't get his sixth Norris Trophy, years from now people will look back and laugh at the NHL's foolishness.

* * *

Don't forget to check out more cool clips at ultimatehockeytv

Babcock pushes for Lidstrom

Detroit Red Wings coach Mike Babcock is lobbying for his captain Nicklas Lidstrom to win the Hart Trophy as league MVP. This is what he says,

"To me, I think he's the best player in the league. He does it right. He's the most consistent.
If you look at the top scoring defenceman in the league he's there. He's got better plus-minus than anyone else. I don't know how it cannot be him.''

I have to agree one hundred percent. It is easy to get blinded by Ovechkin's dominance and scoring, they same goes for Lecavalier, Iginla, and Zetterberg, but none of these players, not even the phenomenon Ovechkin, are as complete or as consistant as the five-time Norris winner. Every one who plays with him gets better, all of his defense partners in recent years have had career seasons next to him and he makes the whole team better. And like Babcock also says, if you are the best player on the league's best team, the one who holds it together, how can you not be the MVP. The fact that some people out east are still debating who should win the Norris Trophy is just laughable. I don't think Lidstrom will be the MVP, but I hope some will agree he is as clear a candidate as there ever was.

Read more of Babcocks lobbying here at the Red Wings Insider by Ansar Khan.