The Athletic's 100 best players - Lidstrom at #8

[Ricelund]

NHL99: Nicklas Lidstrom made perfection look easy

Nicknamed "The Perfect Human," Nicklas Lidstrom displayed grace and dignity on and off the ice.

theathletic.com

Click to read more...

 

[norrisnick]

But just like he was a bit of a secret as a prospect, he was also underappreciated early in his NHL career, despite putting up consistently good numbers. Lidstrom didn’t win his first Norris until his age-30 season.

“You guys had no idea who Nick Lidstrom was, and all of a sudden we’re in the Stanley Cup Final and people are like, ‘This guy is pretty good,'” Yzerman said. “Honestly, that’s what happened. Nobody knew. Because that’s the way he played. He was so efficient and under the radar.”

And that's why I have zero qualms sticking him at #2 ahead of Bourque and his "20 years as a Norris caliber player"

 

[Henkka]

It's quite interesting, how Bourque prime lasted ~until season 1995-96. And the career slip will happen on next season, when Lidström will enter on his prime.

It was like giving the torch.

Lidström never missed the playoffs, which is phenomenal during a 20-season career. Bourque had 22-season career and missed the playoffs only once, at 1996-97.

Also about thse czary stats, Lidström only had one minus season with -2. Bourque had three. Both had 19 plus seasons.

Plusminus from combined Lindström-Bourque -era, from 1979 to 2012.

 

[Pavels Dog]

That was a great read.

 

[Hen Kolland]

It's a good write up, despite the entire NHL99 process looking, reading and feeling like a pile of shit for the most part

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

And that's why I have zero qualms sticking him at #2 ahead of Bourque and his "20 years as a Norris caliber player"

The narrative here at hfboards has definitely become "he didn't win a Norris until his 30s so he wasn't that good early in his career." When it was more that people didn't notice this quiet Swedish kid, when you have guys like Vlad and Coffey in the lineup. In that era you were either an offensive Dman or you played physical hockey.

Also if Lidstrom was a quiet but confident kid from Ontario he probably gets more attention earlier in his career.

Actually asking an honest question, have there been many Dmen like Lidstrom who weren't very physical in the traditional sense but were very good defensively? I'm struggling to come up with names but I'm also not very awake yet.

I also think Lidstrom is a rare case of the oft-used argument here that a player could've scored more if they would've focused less on defense. The times you were most likely to see Lidstrom jumping into the play offensively was when the Wings were behind in the third period.

 

[jaster]

Nice read. We've all participated in the debates over the year, usually between some combo of Lidstrom, Yzerman, and Fedorov..... who was the best player? Who was the best Wing? Who was the most talented? Who had the best peak? Who had the best career? Etc, etc.

One category I can emphatically put Lidstrom at the top of for me personally is, 'who do you feel luckiest to have seen play?' No disrespect to Yzerman, Fedorov, or any other Red Wing, but the way Lidstrom played, combined with his effectiveness, was just so unique, so wonderful to watch, night-in and night-out.

 

[jaster]

The narrative here at hfboards has definitely become "he didn't win a Norris until his 30s so he wasn't that good early in his career." When it was more that people didn't notice this quiet Swedish kid, when you have guys like Vlad and Coffey in the lineup. In that era you were either an offensive Dman or you played physical hockey.

And what a shame. I recall being a kid in the 90s and, amongst my teammates and friends, we (like many Detroit fans) were banging the table for Nick to win a Norris well before 2001. I mean, him losing out to Rob Blake in '98 is still one of the two biggest jokes in the history of NHL awards and Red Wings (the other of course being Jackman over Hank for the Calder). And maybe that's the only one he should have won that he didn't, but it's also noteworthy that he was the runner-up in the 3 years before his first Norris win.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

And what a shame. I recall being a kid in the 90s and, amongst my teammates and friends, we (like many Detroit fans) were banging the table for Nick to win a Norris well before 2001. I mean, him losing out to Rob Blake in '98 is still one of the two biggest jokes in the history of NHL awards and Red Wings (the other of course being Jackman over Hank for the Calder). And maybe that's the only one he should have won that he didn't, but it's also noteworthy that he was the runner-up in the 3 years before his first Norris win.

He probably should have ended up with one more Norris, but Nick also deserved at least a single Byng, and definitely more Hart consideration.

 

[Frk It]

Best defenseman I've seen play in my lifetime.

 

[FabricDetails]

I would really, really love to read Nick's scouting reports on some of the current Red Wings... Especially one or two dmen in particular.

 

[tabness]

I do think Lidstrom started to take his game to the level it got by the late nineties, but yeah, he was definitely underappreciated in the mid nineties a bit.

I never got the notion of "Ray Bourque 22 years of consistency" myself. It's like his best level of play in the late eighties and early nineties is then stretched to before and after because of all star voting and whatever lol (Bourque was actually criticized for game to game inconsistency early on in his career, and it was obvious he wasn't the same level of player by the mid/late nineties).

 

[14ari13]

Nice read. We've all participated in the debates over the year, usually between some combo of Lidstrom, Yzerman, and Fedorov..... who was the best player? Who was the best Wing? Who was the most talented? Who had the best peak? Who had the best career? Etc, etc.

One category I can emphatically put Lidstrom at the top of for me personally is, 'who do you feel luckiest to have seen play?' No disrespect to Yzerman, Fedorov, or any other Red Wing, but the way Lidstrom played, combined with his effectiveness, was just so unique, so wonderful to watch, night-in and night-out.

Give me Datsyuk, Shanahan, Konstatinov and Hasek any night over Lidstrom.

 

[norrisnick]

Give me Datsyuk, Shanahan, Konstatinov and Hasek any night over Lidstrom.

You take those four, I'll take Lidstrom, Fedorov, Yzerman, Zetterberg and a shooter-tutor and win every game.

 

[jaster]

Give me Datsyuk, Shanahan, Konstatinov and Hasek any night over Lidstrom.

I could go with those four over Lidstrom if we're talking simple entertainment factor. But Lidstrom was better at his position than any of them, and combined with his unique style of supreme effectiveness, I feel luckiest to have seen him play. He was the most special.

 

[Perfect Human]

He is my all time favorite athlete. No one has, or likely ever will, come close to him.

 

[14ari13]

I could go with those four over Lidstrom if we're talking simple entertainment factor. But Lidstrom was better at his position than any of them, and combined with his unique style of supreme effectiveness, I feel luckiest to have seen him play. He was the most special.

It was the entertainment factor. I think it was quite clear.
I sometimes wonder if people understand what they talk about. Datsyuk has more highlights in one season than Lidstrom in his whole career. Lidstrom is one of the most effective players ever. But there is nothing entertaining about his game.

 

[jaster]

It was the entertainment factor. I think it was quite clear.
I sometimes wonder if people understand what they talk about. Datsyuk has more highlights in one season than Lidstrom in his whole career. Lidstrom is one of the most effective players ever. But there is nothing entertaining about his game.

I was pretty explicit in the post you replied to when I said, "'who do you feel luckiest to have seen play?'" That was the subject you replied to. So no, it wasn't "quite clear" that you were talking about entertainment factor all of a sudden lol.

I sometimes wonder if people understand what they read about.

Then again, I'm not sure how anyone can find nothing entertaining about Nicklas Lidstrom, so maybe I'm setting the bar too high

 

[norrisnick]

It was the entertainment factor. I think it was quite clear.
I sometimes wonder if people understand what they talk about. Datsyuk has more highlights in one season than Lidstrom in his whole career. Lidstrom is one of the most effective players ever. But there is nothing entertaining about his game.

I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

The other thing to note about Lidstrom: He is the player that is the current measuring stick for every defenseman in the league, at least for most wings fans.

We got spoiled From 20 years of watching a number one defenseman play so flawlessly that many expected that same attention to detail and level of performance from every guy on this team after. The fans on this forum nitpick defensemen even more than goalies now.

 

[jaster]

The other thing to note about Lidstrom: He is the player that is the current measuring stick for every defenseman in the league, at least for most wings fans.

We got spoiled From 20 years of watching a number one defenseman play so flawlessly that many expected that same attention to detail and level of performance from every guy on this team after. The fans on this forum nitpick defensemen even more than goalies now.

Cheveldae be on his rocking chair these days like, "Back in my day...."

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Cheveldae be on his rocking chair these days like, "Back in my day...."

Or Osgood or Howard or Legace or Joseph. I think the only goalie that didn’t catch a shitload of heat from Detroit fans was Hasek.

Our defensemen make a mistake that just about every NHL defenseman will make in the course of a game and some fans here (myself included sometimes) latch onto it because Lidstrom would not have made it. (Even if he did)

 

[jaster]

Or Osgood or Howard or Legace or Joseph. I think the only goalie that didn’t catch a shitload of heat from Detroit fans was Hasek.

Our defensemen make a mistake that just about every NHL defenseman will make in the course of a game and some fans here (myself included sometimes) latch onto it because Lidstrom would not have made it. (Even if he did)

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

 

[kliq]

Actually asking an honest question, have there been many Dmen like Lidstrom who weren't very physical in the traditional sense but were very good defensively? I'm struggling to come up with names but I'm also not very awake yet.

I didnt see much of this guy play, but would this architype apply to Scott Niedermayer? Obviously not as good as Lidstrom, but from what I remember he was good defensively and I dont believe he was that physical.