Is Nick Lidstrom underrated or overrated

[KirkAlbuquerque]

slightly overrated

 

[BraveCanadian]

Really depends on who is doing the rating

 

[The Macho King]

he also could have had Norrises earlier than he did. took a long time to get appreciated because he played a conservative game. his last Norris was possibly an apology.

I don't actually buy this, for the record. I guess '98 going to Rob Blake was a bit of a head scratcher and maybe should have gone to him, but I do think his last Norris made up for it.

The answer is he was the best defenseman in an era where there were not very many elite defensemen, so he stood head and shoulders above a mediocre crowd. Clearly the best defender of his generation, but I don't think his generation is properly graded. Generally though, I think he's normally appropriately rated - top 5/6 defender all-time, but I have him toward the low end of that list.

It's more the second tier of that generation that I think get undue credit rather than him. Your Niedermayers, Prongers, etc.

 

[Dingo]

I don't actually buy this, for the record. I guess '98 going to Rob Blake was a bit of a head scratcher and maybe should have gone to him, but I do think his last Norris made up for it.

The answer is he was the best defenseman in an era where there were not very many elite defensemen, so he stood head and shoulders above a mediocre crowd. Clearly the best defender of his generation, but I don't think his generation is properly graded. Generally though, I think he's normally appropriately rated - top 5/6 defender all-time, but I have him toward the low end of that list.

It's more the second tier of that generation that I think get undue credit rather than him. Your Niedermayers, Prongers, etc.

whats your top 10?

 

[The Macho King]

whats your top 10?

Orr
Bourque
Harvey
Shore
Potvin
Lidstrom
Fetisov
Kelly
Robinson
Chelios

 

[Ducks in a row]

Underrated when people say he’s not exactly this

And this is perfect example of what I was talking about. Nicklas Lidstrom was a great defenseman but he wasn't the best defenseman not named Bobby Orr. Calling someone underrated for not being the best defenseman not named Bobby Orr is ridiculous.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

And this is perfect example of what I was talking about. Nicklas Lidstrom was a great defenseman but he wasn't the best defenseman not named Bobby Orr. Calling someone underrated for not being the best defenseman not named Bobby Orr is ridiculous.

You’re underrating Nick Lidstrom

 

[SlickHands]

I don't actually buy this, for the record. I guess '98 going to Rob Blake was a bit of a head scratcher and maybe should have gone to him, but I do think his last Norris made up for it.

The answer is he was the best defenseman in an era where there were not very many elite defensemen, so he stood head and shoulders above a mediocre crowd. Clearly the best defender of his generation, but I don't think his generation is properly graded. Generally though, I think he's normally appropriately rated - top 5/6 defender all-time, but I have him toward the low end of that list.

It's more the second tier of that generation that I think get undue credit rather than him. Your Niedermayers, Prongers, etc.

I think you have it backwards. I think Lidstrom competed against and was in a league with every bit as good of a defensive pool as any other era. Who exactly did Bourque compete against for his Norris's? Is competing against the likes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, etc a drastic upgrade from Pronger, Niedermeyer, Chara, Keith, Blake etc? It's also hard to make "generational" arguments lessening Lidstrom's peers when his closest competition for #2 all time is Bourque, and their NHL careers overlapped for over a decade.

Lidstrom was so far and away ahead of his peers during his peak that his complete lack of a good-ol-boys defensive "physical" game (something Pronger, Stevens, and such got IMO quite overrated from having) completely changed the way the position is valued. I think Lidstrom, by virtue of his level of play and consistency, "lessened" the value of his peers in the same way Bourque probably did for the likes of Leetch, MacInnis, etc. Before Lidstrom, if you're not crushing bodies or leading the league in points, you weren't winning a Norris. For me, his play was so consistent, so efficient, so effective, and so sustained, that there is no defenseman I've ever seen play that I would take over him.

 

[newfy]

Hes rated how he should be. Arguably number 2 behind Orr with Bourque being the other obvious one and basically everyone else at worst rating him in the top 5.

People who call his last Norris a joke are hilarious though. Everyone likes to cry about how Weber should have won, despite the fact that Weber was arguably not the number one dman on his team, despite the fact that Lidstrom outscored him by a fairly significant margin, despite Lidstrom playing more time short handed and then the biggest LOL in that entire argument is that Weber didnt even have the second most first place votes that year, Chara did.

With that being said, if Weber or Chara win that year it wouldnt have been a big deal. All 3 guys had deserving seasons and it was a very close vote. All 3 being elite defensively and Lidstrom having a clear offensive edge is what led to him getting more votes. Calling that Norris "a joke" really shows when people dont know what theyre talking about. And then they never want to talk about losing to Blake when there was still a negative bias towards Europeans as well

 

[Bonin21]

Best D since Bobby Orr.

 

[The Macho King]

I think you have it backwards. I think Lidstrom competed against and was in a league with every bit as good of a defensive pool as any other era. Who exactly did Bourque compete against for his Norris's? Is competing against the likes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, etc a drastic upgrade from Pronger, Niedermeyer, Chara, Keith, Blake etc? It's also hard to make "generational" arguments lessening Lidstrom's peers when his closest competition for #2 all time is Bourque, and their NHL careers overlapped for over a decade.

Lidstrom was so far and away ahead of his peers during his peak that his complete lack of a good-ol-boys defensive "physical" game (something Pronger, Stevens, and such got IMO quite overrated from having) completely changed the way the position is valued. I think Lidstrom, by virtue of his level of play and consistency, "lessened" the value of his peers in the same way Bourque probably did for the likes of Leetch, MacInnis, etc. Before Lidstrom, if you're not crushing bodies or leading the league in points, you weren't winning a Norris. For me, his play was so consistent, so efficient, so effective, and so sustained, that there is no defenseman I've ever seen play that I would take over him.

Ummm... yes? Yes it is? Late 80s/early 90s was by far the best generation for defensemen maybe in league history. And that's with you leaving out guys like MacInnis and Stevens who were also perennial contenders. Lidstrom peaked well after Bourque did - their careers overlap because both of them have insane longevity, not because they were both in their primes at the same time.

Also Keith wasn't really a perennial Norris contender. Don't even think he's been nominated outside of his wins. Niedermayer is the most overrated player in NHL history, or at least on the short list.

This is homer nonsense suggesting the QoC was anywhere near where it was with Bourque. The guys Bourque was beating for those Norris trophies weren't viewed as they were because they "crushed bodies" or "leading the league in points." They were just really f***ing good.

 

[SlickHands]

Hes rated how he should be. Arguably number 2 behind Orr with Bourque being the other obvious one and basically everyone else at worst rating him in the top 5.

People who call his last Norris a joke are hilarious though. Everyone likes to cry about how Weber should have won, despite the fact that Weber was arguably not the number one dman on his team, despite the fact that Lidstrom outscored him by a fairly significant margin, despite Lidstrom playing more time short handed and then the biggest LOL in that entire argument is that Weber didnt even have the second most first place votes that year, Chara did.

With that being said, if Weber or Chara win that year it wouldnt have been a big deal. All 3 guys had deserving seasons and it was a very close vote. All 3 being elite defensively and Lidstrom having a clear offensive edge is what led to him getting more votes. Calling that Norris "a joke" really shows when people dont know what theyre talking about. And then they never want to talk about losing to Blake when there was still a negative bias towards Europeans as well

This. I think the entire "he didn't deserve it" argument stemmed (and most probably won't admit it) entirely from the fact that Lidstrom had a negative +/- that year (-2) for the FIRST time in his career. A stat line no one values until it suits their argument. The 2011 win has sort of grown as a narrative with the crowed that wants to find ways to chip away at Lidstrom's resume, but it's silly and hardly one of the more glaring examples of reputation bias in NHL awards.

 

[Albatros]

Ummm... yes? Yes it is? Late 80s/early 90s was by far the best generation for defensemen maybe in league history. And that's with you leaving out guys like MacInnis and Stevens who were also perennial contenders. Lidstrom peaked well after Bourque did - their careers overlap because both of them have insane longevity, not because they were both in their primes at the same time.

Also Keith wasn't really a perennial Norris contender. Don't even think he's been nominated outside of his wins. Niedermayer is the most overrated player in NHL history, or at least on the short list.

This is homer nonsense suggesting the QoC was anywhere near where it was with Bourque. The guys Bourque was beating for those Norris trophies weren't viewed as they were because they "crushed bodies" or "leading the league in points." They were just really f***ing good.

I wouldn't necessarily emphasize the highest-scoring era in league history as the one with the best defensemen in league history.

 

[SlickHands]

Ummm... yes? Yes it is? Late 80s/early 90s was by far the best generation for defensemen maybe in league history. And that's with you leaving out guys like MacInnis and Stevens who were also perennial contenders. Lidstrom peaked well after Bourque did - their careers overlap because both of them have insane longevity, not because they were both in their primes at the same time.

Also Keith wasn't really a perennial Norris contender. Don't even think he's been nominated outside of his wins. Niedermayer is the most overrated player in NHL history, or at least on the short list.

This is homer nonsense suggesting the QoC was anywhere near where it was with Bourque. The guys Bourque was beating for those Norris trophies weren't viewed as they were because they "crushed bodies" or "leading the league in points." They were just really f***ing good.

I mentioned Mac and Stevens later in my post. Never was that impressed by either's game. The former (like Coffey) and the generation in general, is highly overrated by the differences in league scoring. As for Stevens, I don't even think he would even be a top pair guy in the modern game. Too slow and half of his tools are illegal now. I think you're overvaluing the 80s by a ton. The depth in the league (Europeans just starting to make their way in when Bourque was coming in), the pace of play, the goaltending, the conditioning and nutrition, all improved over the time Lidstrom was in the league.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

This. I think the entire "he didn't deserve it" argument stemmed (and most probably won't admit it) entirely from the fact that Lidstrom had a negative +/- that year (-2) for the FIRST time in his career. A stat line no one values until it suits their argument. The 2011 win has sort of grown as a narrative with the crowed that wants to find ways to chip away at Lidstrom's resume, but it's silly and hardly one of the more glaring examples of reputation bias in NHL awards.

Yeah, it is. It's a blatant career achievement award.

Weber that year had Lidstrom beat in every possible category and some werent even close.

Weber had 30 ES points to Lidstrom's 22
+7 vs -2
113 blocks vs 92
211 hits vs 92
62 takeaways vs 33
7.1 CFrel vs 0.3
2.3 GA/60 vs 3.8
5.5 defensive point shares vs 3.3
10.1 point shares vs 9.5

 

[SlickHands]

Yeah, it is. It's a blatant career achievement award.

Weber that year had Lidstrom beat in every possible category and some werent even close.

Weber had 30 ES points to Lidstrom's 22
+7 vs -2
113 blocks vs 92
211 hits vs 92
62 takeaways vs 33
7.1 CFrel vs 0.3
2.3 GA/60 vs 3.8
5.5 defensive point shares vs 3.3
10.1 point shares vs 9.5

Neato! I can pick the stats I like too! Hits and blocks were always such a big part of why Lidstrom was so effective. So, I can tell you have an acumen for the sport and for making reasonable comparisons. Good on you for not buying into the whole points argument.

Also, as for Even Strength points, do a deep dive on the 2010-11 Preds. He was one of the worst Dmen on the squad for even strength point differential. When Suter was on the ice even strength, the team was +18 in the goal department. Weber? +5. The team literally let in 20 more even strength goals with Weber on the ice, playing VIRTUALLY the same minutes and in the same situations. Dude wasn't even the best Dman on his team and his offensive numbers do not compare to Lidstroms, not even in the micro-comparison of 2011 alone.

 

[Sega Dreamcast]

Lidstrom had a negative +/- that year (-2) for the FIRST time in his career.

It makes you wonder what else is Nicklas Lidstrom hiding?

 

[Regal]

I think you have it backwards. I think Lidstrom competed against and was in a league with every bit as good of a defensive pool as any other era. Who exactly did Bourque compete against for his Norris's? Is competing against the likes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, etc a drastic upgrade from Pronger, Niedermeyer, Chara, Keith, Blake etc? It's also hard to make "generational" arguments lessening Lidstrom's peers when his closest competition for #2 all time is Bourque, and their NHL careers overlapped for over a decade.

Lidstrom was so far and away ahead of his peers during his peak that his complete lack of a good-ol-boys defensive "physical" game (something Pronger, Stevens, and such got IMO quite overrated from having) completely changed the way the position is valued. I think Lidstrom, by virtue of his level of play and consistency, "lessened" the value of his peers in the same way Bourque probably did for the likes of Leetch, MacInnis, etc. Before Lidstrom, if you're not crushing bodies or leading the league in points, you weren't winning a Norris. For me, his play was so consistent, so efficient, so effective, and so sustained, that there is no defenseman I've ever seen play that I would take over him.

Absolutely, when you consider that Pronger was frequently injured, Niedermayer was only a Norris level defenseman for 3 years, and Keith wasn't a Norris level defenseman until the tail end of Lidstrom's career. Bourque's early competition wasn't great either, but the mid-80s to mid-90s was much stronger competition than the early 2000 - 2010

 

[Regal]

I wouldn't necessarily emphasize the highest-scoring era in league history as the one with the best defensemen in league history.

Those two things are completely unrelatedl

 

[doomscroll]

The only thing Lidstrom did right was be lucky enought to play his whole career with Detroit, who had elite hall of fame players or very good players that Lidstrom could leetch off of. If Lidtrom had played his whole career in Edmonton instead, he wouldn't have been half the player he is considered to be today...

If you look at the Wings’ scoring in the season before Lidström’s rookie season, the explosion of scoring depth becomes obvious. The Wings also hadn’t won a cup for almost forty years up to that point, and only contended in a weak Norris division (featuring the 80s/early-90s Blues, North Stars, Leafs, and Blackhawks)

 

[SlickHands]

Those two things are completely unrelatedl

Social networking and rocket fuel are completely unrelated.

Era scoring and defensive quality are not.

 

[FMichael]

He’s generally considered one of the 10 best to ever play the position, and that’s an accurate assessment.

Correctly rated.



….I will say, his final Norris was a joke.

Looks like he beat Weber by a pube...

2010-11 NHL Awards Voting | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[FMichael]

The only thing Lidstrom did right was be lucky enought to play his whole career with Detroit, who had elite hall of fame players or very good players that Lidstrom could leetch off of. If Lidtrom had played his whole career in Edmonton instead, he wouldn't have been half the player he is considered to be today...

The exact same could be said about any of the recent HoF netminders...Brodeur/Roy/Hasek/Belfour - have many 'bad teams' did they play on?

 

[The Macho King]

The exact same could be said about any of the recent HoF netminders...Brodeur/Roy/Hasek/Belfour - have many 'bad teams' did they play on?

Hasek played on a few...

 

[The Zermanator]

Lidstrom literally played a perfect game, he is hockey's version of Pele. Go ahead and try to name one weakness. He was elite offensively and defensively. He would just make the right play every time whether the puck was on his stick or not. Always in position, doing everything smart and simple and making it look easy. I remember so many occasions where an opposing team dump in would be met by Lidstrom just whacking it back to centre ice in mid-air, putting his team back on offence. He had zero holes in his game and got better with age. And barely lost any time to injury over his career, in large part because of the methodical and consistent way he played the game.

You have your titans of the sport in Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr. In terms of D, you pick Orr #1 because he is the type of exceptionally rare player who can single-handedly take control of a game. Apart from those 3, no one else has reached that level except for maybe short bursts in their careers. As far as the mere mortals go, there's no dman I would take before Lidstrom if I was building a team. You don't have to worry about the team around him, putting him in suitable situations, or anything else. You know he is just going to go out there and play a practically perfect game, in any situation. Between 2000-01 and 2010-11 Lidstrom won 7/10 Norris trophies. No other dman in league history, barring Orr and Doug Harvey (who had much less competition in a 6-team league), have achieved that level of domination over their contemporaries. He is #2 all-time, if he is ranked lower than that he is underrated.