Blake was selected to represent Canada at 5 international best-on-best competions: '96 World Cup; '98, '02, and '06 Olympics; and '04 World Cup (where he was injured and didn't play) - to me, that speaks volumes as to how he was truly perceived by the hockey world during his prime.
sadly, i think a lot of what has been lost is that blake played for so long after his peak that we forget how good he really was and that lidstrom supporters have been beating him up for taking that '98 norris. we all do this-- unfairly dump on one player to prop up the other-- but in this case it's beyond overkill.
I'm not sure it's just Lidstrom supporters doing the dumping, seems like a general phenomenon that kind of came out of nowhere. Probably connected, as you say, to the fact that he played for so long after his peak that he became kind of a joke. And also that he kind of burned his bridges in LA, which doesn't exactly rival the big northern markets in terms of vocal support in the first place. There just doesn't seem to be a big pro-Blake contingent to offset the momentum of the dismissive comments.
No one ever doubted Stevens talent or abilities.
It was his lack of discipline that cost him in those days.
Pronger had the same issues holding him back most of the time.
i think most reasonable people don't doubt pre-NJ stevens, though as you say discipline was an issue. but there was another thread recently where someone said washington and even st. louis stevens was basically a slightly better kevin hatcher. i shake my head.
i think most reasonable people don't doubt pre-NJ stevens, though as you say discipline was an issue. but there was another thread recently where someone said washington and even st. louis stevens was basically a slightly better kevin hatcher. i shake my head.
I would too. Once Sutter got a hold of him in St. Louis, calmed him down a bit and got him to pick his spots better, his game really began to soar.
I also had the benefit of watching both him and MacInnis play for the Kitchener Rangers in the early 80's.
not to say that he was objectively better than lidstrom (it was very close), but that he was the sole reason that awful post-gretzky team made the playoffs. compare with selanne, who got all sorts of brownie points for succeeding with kariya injured. selanne didn't even make the playoffs; hell, they finished one point out of last in the conference (kariya had a worse team, but how much worse?) blake led a complete garbage roster to the 5th seed in the west.
Not that it's relevant to the topic, but Holy mischaracterization, Batman!
Selanne didn't get any "brownie points" that season - he was the league leader in Goals (41) and Points (68) for the first 3/4 of the season before getting injured at the Olympics. The only reason he finished 8th in scoring is because once the Mighty Ducks were officially eliminated from the playoffs in Game 78, he stopped playing hockey so as to not aggravate his injuries. And he still led the league in even-strength goals (41) and points (67) in just 73 games.
Maybe Blake should have been on more than eight ballots, but he wasn't on Selanne's level in 1997-98. Hell, Selanne was a +12 on a team with a -56 goal differential, and he didn't have .911 goaltending like Blake.
Is that a huge difference? Lidstrom clearly had the worst goaltending of any of the three finalists in 2011.
Agree that "robbed" is too strong a word, but I do think that Lidstrom was closer to being robbed than Weber was.
I agree that Lidstrom's 2011 Norris was very weak, but the thing is, it was an incredibly weak season overall for defensemen at the top.
well, i would like to think Osgood was better than Fiset lol.
i just think people are quick to dismiss Blake without looking at the entire team he played for. LA was garbage in the mid 90's, and probably would not have made the playoffs that year had Blake not been a Norris trophy winner.
I'm not sure it's just Lidstrom supporters doing the dumping, seems like a general phenomenon that kind of came out of nowhere. Probably connected, as you say, to the fact that he played for so long after his peak that he became kind of a joke. And also that he kind of burned his bridges in LA, which doesn't exactly rival the big northern markets in terms of vocal support in the first place. There just doesn't seem to be a big pro-Blake contingent to offset the momentum of the dismissive comments.
I think a lot of it comes from some advanced stats people and the current obsession with even strength play. Compared to other superstar defensmen, Blake's plus/minuses are weak both absolutely and compared to his teammates. Comparing Blake to Niedermayer (who has a similar Norris record), I always thought Nieds was better at even strength and Blake was better on both special teams. Since a lot of advanced stats people have been de-emphasizing special teams play (wrongly IMO), it hurts someone like Blake
well, i would like to think Osgood was better than Fiset lol.
i just think people are quick to dismiss Blake without looking at the entire team he played for. LA was garbage in the mid 90's, and probably would not have made the playoffs that year had Blake not been a Norris trophy winner.
Oh Osgood beats Fiset in career value, sure. On a season by season basis, I don't think Osgood was ever any better than average
The Kings basically added a new top line in '98: Stumpel, Murray and Robitaille returned.
The Kings had a +2 GF-GA differential, but it was +13 if you deduct PPs and +15 at ES (the sum of players' +/- was +54).
The West has been referred to as top heavy that year and that's an understatement. Only 4 of the other 12 teams had a positive goal differential, and the Kings' division was especially weak. The East was much stronger that year, esp. in terms of difficulty making the playoffs.
I admit I thought Blake was overrated, and agree more with those that say there were multiple d-men in '98 who were at least as deserving as Blake.
This thread basically demonstrates the lengths people are ready to do in order to rehabilitate Lidstrom... As if he needed to be rehabilitated at all.
This is pretty much all there is to see here.
I don't think it's "rehabilitation," so much as remembering the widely held (but not universal) belief that Lidstrom was underrated for years because hockey people couldn't believe someone could play top notch defense without playing physical
I don't think it's "rehabilitation," so much as remembering the widely held (but not universal) belief that Lidstrom was underrated for years because hockey people couldn't believe someone could play top notch defense without playing physical
Which is basically what I meant with highlight reel Blake.
Lidstrom outscored Weber by a fair chunk in 2011, where Lidstrom was the clear best defender on his team. Preds fans often thought of Suter as being better than Weber, and Suter playing just as many minutes as Weber doesnt exactly scream sure fire Norris.
Weber might even be the third most valuable defensive player on that team behind Rinne and Suter, its definitely a debatable point. Put Weber with Rafalski or someone on Detroits defense that year and he doesnt look as good defensively.
But if we are going to use the word, I think Lidstrom was "robbed" of a Norris in both 1998 and 2009, and "robbed" of a 2nd Team All Star in both 1996 and 2004.
Lidstrom had a down year in 2004 by his standards. Who should he have replaced on the 2nd AST in 2004?
Lidstrom outscored Weber by a fair chunk in 2011, where Lidstrom was the clear best defender on his team. Preds fans often thought of Suter as being better than Weber, and Suter playing just as many minutes as Weber doesnt exactly scream sure fire Norris.
Weber might even be the third most valuable defensive player on that team behind Rinne and Suter, its definitely a debatable point. Put Weber with Rafalski or someone on Detroits defense that year and he doesnt look as good defensively.
What does it matter if Lidstrom outscored Weber? Weber was within 3 points of leading his own team in scoring.
Lidstrom had a down year in 2004 by his standards. Who should he have replaced on the 2nd AST in 2004?
Brian McCabe got the 2nd team AS by getting 53 points. Lidstrom had a down year offensively (38 points) but was as good as anyone defensively. IMO, Lidstrom lost the 2nd Team in 2003-04 because he fell behind his own lofty standards, not because he wasn't better overall than McCabe and Aucoin.
I don't know about "robbed" in either case. In my opinion Weber deserved the Norris in 2011. But he deserved it even more in 2012. I was watching the NHL awards in 2012 with a little bit of a chuckle when they were announcing the Norris winner. I thought "why even bother saying his name, just give it to Weber." I sat stunned when I saw Karlsson jump up on the stage to grab it instead.
I am one of those guys who likes to defend Blake in 1998. You have to remember, the Kings were not a very good team then. They were middle of the pack at best to be generous. Blake for a number of years was the cog in that team, he was their core and 1998 is no different. Remember, Blake finished 10th in Hart voting that year, the highest among any defenseman so it isn't as if it was a shock to everyone. I also think the 23 goals helped out a lot. That's a nice number for a defenseman and was more of a Leetch/MacInnis stat you were used to seeing.
I guess if I have to lean on either side I'd say Weber was robbed more in 2011. It was more a case of lazy voting and going based on reputation. Weber, like Blake, was the catalyst of his team perhaps even more so. Either way, whether it is 2011 or 2012 Weber has a Norris by now in my world.
I guess if I have to lean on either side I'd say Weber was robbed more in 2011. It was more a case of lazy voting and going based on reputation. Weber, like Blake, was the catalyst of his team perhaps even more so. Either way, whether it is 2011 or 2012 Weber has a Norris by now in my world.
Bingo. Here's just an example from Adam Proteau of TheHockeyNews:
Quote:
NORRIS TROPHY
The award presented to the league’s best all-round defenseman should go to the greatest blueliner of his generation: the 40-year-old Nicklas Lidstrom, who already has six Norris Trophies in his cabinet.
Now, you can talk about slight slippage in Lidstrom’s game and point out that he was a minus player (minus-2) for the first time in his career. I don’t care. If you asked all NHL coaches which D-man they’d put out on the ice at any time in a crucial game, the grand majority would reply with Lidstrom’s name. And on the offensive end, he finished the year with 62 points - his best total since 2007-08. Sorry, Shea Weber, but the professor isn’t leaning on his tenure enough for me to give you the Norris. Yet.
1. Nicklas Lidstrom, Detroit Red Wings
2. Shea Weber, Nashville Predators
3. Keith Yandle, Phoenix Coyotes
4. Lubomir Visnovsky, Anaheim Ducks
5. Kris Letang, Pittsburgh Penguins
Just a few things. It's hard to separate Weber and Chara that year, and to me Weber's case is muddled by playing with Suter. A fair number of people who watched Nashville with regularity considered Suter to be at least as good, if not better.
In 1998 there were was a greater number of legitimate Norris candidates, but most have a limiting factor. MacInnis and Zubov were both very good but missed some time, Niedermayer was great but he wasn't even perceived at New Jersey's #1 defenceman, Stevens was also great but he hardly did anything offensively. Pronger had the best case against Lidstrom in my opinion, but be played behind MacInnis somewhat that year and definitely on the PP. Blake I feel was great, but definitely not as good as Lidstrom. Lidstrom had the strongest case, but he wasn't exactly blowing people away.
I don't know about "robbed" in either case. In my opinion Weber deserved the Norris in 2011. But he deserved it even more in 2012. I was watching the NHL awards in 2012 with a little bit of a chuckle when they were announcing the Norris winner. I thought "why even bother saying his name, just give it to Weber." I sat stunned when I saw Karlsson jump up on the stage to grab it instead.
Fully agree with you here and neither guy was robbed so I won't vote on it.
Just a few things. It's hard to separate Weber and Chara that year, and to me Weber's case is muddled by playing with Suter. A fair number of people who watched Nashville with regularity considered Suter to be at least as good, if not better.
In 1998 there were was a greater number of legitimate Norris candidates, but most have a limiting factor. MacInnis and Zubov were both very good but missed some time, Niedermayer was great but he wasn't even perceived at New Jersey's #1 defenceman, Stevens was also great but he hardly did anything offensively. Pronger had the best case against Lidstrom in my opinion, but be played behind MacInnis somewhat that year and definitely on the PP. Blake I feel was great, but definitely not as good as Lidstrom. Lidstrom had the strongest case, but he wasn't exactly blowing people away.
Pronger was St.Louis' clear #1; MacInnis was second in ice time per game, just barely, ahead of Steve Duchesne.
Also, Stumpel and Murray up front and Norstrom on the blue line helped a great deal in the Kings making the playoffs. It wasn't JUST Blake, carrying some AHLers.
The top five defensemen IMHO in 1998: Lidstrom, Pronger, Bourque, Niedermayer, Stevens. I wouldn't even put Blake top-ten.
The top-six defensemen IMHO from 2011: Lidstrom, Chara, Enstrom, Suter, Keith, Weber
Pronger was St.Louis' clear #1; MacInnis was second in ice time per game, just barely, ahead of Steve Duchesne.
Also, Stumpel and Murray up front and Norstrom on the blue line helped a great deal in the Kings making the playoffs. It wasn't JUST Blake, carrying some AHLers.
The top five defensemen IMHO in 1998: Lidstrom, Pronger, Bourque, Niedermayer, Stevens. I wouldn't even put Blake top-ten.
The top-six defensemen IMHO from 2011: Lidstrom, Chara, Enstrom, Suter, Keith, Weber
Really?
If he isn't top 10 in his Norris year does he make your top 200 Dmen of all time list?
Maybe you could list the other 5 guys ahead of him in 98 as well.
