Like others have said, Lidstrom should have won in 09 when Chara won, so B's fans really shouldn't be whining too much, Lidstrom was clearly better that year.
I'd also like to point out that Chara and Weber both play in front of Vezina Finalists(1 winner), where Lidstrom played in front of a .908 Howard on a down year.
Maybe Weber should have won, but it's a nice make up from Chara winning in 09 or Blake in 98.
ken holland said in an interview many weeks ago that lidstrom was runner up for norris. i thought that he accidentally let out the secret, but he was wrong.
Probably just a slip of the tongue and he meant nominee
Some Bruins fan tried posting a picture of what I assume was Chara with the Stanley Cup in the main board thread, but couldn't even get the hyperlink right.
What's great about that, though, is any time a Bruins fan does that in a Lidstrom/Chara debate, one can respond with 4 pictures of Lidstrom with the Cup and 1 with the Conn Smythe.
No, I investigated, it was a ****** image macro from icanhascheezeburger.com
Lidstrom has now been a 1st team all-star 10 times in the past 13 seasons, and has only been off the season-ending all-star teams once in that time span.
He has finished in the top 6 in both Norris trophy and all-star voting in each of the past 15 seasons.
It's funny when I looked some pictures from 2002 Stanley Cup run, Lidström looked like 25 year old youngster (he was actually 32). Now he looks almost like real 32-year-old, and he is 41.
And how many teams? Remember they had that goofy expansion and alignment where all the new teams were in the same division for a while. Orr's only real competition was on that stacked Montreal squad.
In the sense that Orr was on a different plane for that generation, he'll always be regarded as the greatest of all. However it's a lot tougher to stand out today--- more teams/more players, more injuries due to equipment/speed, far more highly skilled players with incredible training and endurance. A lot of those guys smoked and weren't in very good shape.
And how many teams? Remember they had that goofy expansion and alignment where all the new teams were in the same division for a while. Orr's only real competition was on that stacked Montreal squad.
In the sense that Orr was on a different plane for that generation, he'll always be regarded as the greatest of all. However it's a lot tougher to stand out today--- more teams/more players, more injuries due to equipment/speed, far more highly skilled players with incredible training and endurance. A lot of those guys smoked and weren't in very good shape.
And if those guys were around today, they wouldn't smoke, they'd have the great trainers, and the personal nutritionist million dollar contracts, etc. etc. etc.
I don't think there's a serious hockey observer in the world who puts Lidstrom in the same class as Bobby Orr.
And if those guys were around today, they wouldn't smoke, they'd have the great trainers, and the personal nutritionist million dollar contracts, etc. etc. etc.
I don't think there's a serious hockey observer in the world who puts Lidstrom in the same class as Bobby Orr.
Hmmm. So I'm not a serious observer if I tend to view the historical comparisons as utter bunk? They're just not comparable. You can't say that if so and so played today they'd get the same results. They fit their time and situation. It doesn't carry across generations.
I never have figured out why people try to make those comparisons either. One can rank guys within their genre, and maybe say to what degree they altered the game in that point in time, but you could also argue the case that if so and so went back in time, maybe he would do something incredible under those specific conditions too.
For the record, I saw plenty of Orr, and I've also seen Lidstrom. I think they're the two best defensemen I've ever seen. I'm not going to try to do the cross-generational junk though.
Hmmm. So I'm not a serious observer if I tend to view the historical comparisons as utter bunk? They're just not comparable. You can't say that if so and so played today they'd get the same results. They fit their time and situation. It doesn't carry across generations.
I never have figured out why people try to make those comparisons either. One can rank guys within their genre, and maybe say to what degree they altered the game in that point in time, but you could also argue the case that if so and so went back in time, maybe he would do something incredible under those specific conditions too.
For the record, I saw plenty of Orr, and I've also seen Lidstrom. I think they're the two best defensemen I've ever seen. I'm not going to try to do the cross-generational junk though.
I agree. Comparing eras is pointless, which is why I think top 100 lists of all time is useless. Best defensemen on the 90's-00's? That makes more sense.
