Lidstrom

[Steve Yzerlland]

Best defenseman ever.

 

[Dotter]

I remember watching Wings in the late 90s and everyone knew he was a very special player. As time wore on, it's like he got even better. His nick name (aside from St. Nick) is "The Perfect Human". He was elite of nothing, but a master of everything (if that makes sense). EDIT: except hockey IQ, he had elite IQ and postitioning.

I think he has OCD to be honest. I remember seeing a documentary some years ago and what stood out at me was the section of him just being so damn structured. I bet he makes his bed every morning that a quarter would bounce off from. I bet he makes healthy juice drinks every morning exactly the same time every-single-morning.

As for the cup run, that was a nail biter. If they lost, it would have been the biggest embarrassment of sports history. They were built to win the cup, anything less was unacceptable. So as a fan, I felt 2x the pressure-to-win.

 

[Dotter]

My favorite hockey experience may be realizing that it's Lidstrom defending a two on one. At first you're panicking "oh god, Sakic and Forsberg are coming in on a two on one, we're toast. Oh wait it's Lids. Whew. We're good. At best they'll get a shot from the outside"

That's exactly how I felt when he was on the ice.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

I remember watching Wings in the late 90s and everyone knew he was a very special player. As time wore on, it's like he got even better. His nick name (aside from St. Nick) is "The Perfect Human". He was elite of nothing, but a master of everything (if that makes sense). EDIT: except hockey IQ, he had elite IQ and postitioning.

I think he has OCD to be honest. I remember seeing a documentary some years ago and what stood out at me was the section of him just being so damn structured. I bet he makes his bed every morning that a quarter would bounce off from. I bet he makes healthy juice drinks every morning exactly the same time every-single-morning.

As for the cup run, that was a nail biter. If they lost, it would have been the biggest embarrassment of sports history. They were built to win the cup, anything less was unacceptable. So as a fan, I felt 2x the pressure-to-win.

I remember that too. I can't remember where I saw it but I think he had the same breakfast when he was on the road. And talked about how for afternoon games he would skip the morning skate so he'd be more excited to get on the ice for those games at odd times.

He knew himself and what made him work best and was a consummate pro athlete.

 

[ER89]

He controlled the game in both ends unlike almost everyone else I have ever seen. Early in his career he wasn't as appreciated outside Detroit because he didn't play a physical game, but his smarts in both ends was better than virtually anyone else. In my opinion only Bourque was with or better than Nicklas Lidstrom during their 2 careers.

Also as you alluded to @ER89 , he was virtually mistake free as he had such a calm with the puck which is why he was so good. He also could play 25-35 minutes a night and still be playing well in the end minutes of a game.

As to the 2002 team, I wasn't that confident as maybe many were, because there was so little ice time for the good players, and that can sometimes bring the level of play for some down, having to adjust to smaller roles. Also, Hasek despite having decent regular season numbers and great playoff numbers was less than great that year. He was not the dominator to me that season as he had many really easy nights of 18-22 shots against and low chances and he let in some awfully soft goals, especially when talking about a Vezina level goalie.

That said it was a lot of fun to be a Wings fan from 1997-2010, as we were always in the mix. These last 4 seasons though have been the absolute opposite of that.

Welcome to the club

 

[Avery Rule]

Hey guys, I was watching the documentary on NHL's youtube channel- The Joe.

And as a leaf fan in his 20s I realized (well I knew but still) like wtf lol, we've never had the sheer talent that the wings had over the last couple decades.

So my question is this: when Lidstrom was playing did the fans appreciate him and truly felt he was perfect? Like was he actually just so good defensively that he barely made errors?

And my second question is: for those who got to watch all that talent (01-02 team particularly) what the heck was that like? Was there ever a doubt amongst fans that they wouldn't win the cup?

I remember that summer when we got Hasek i about lost it, he was my favorite non wings player, then add Hull and Robitaille and I was confident we would win.

I remember it like it was yesterday.

 

[ricky0034]

For me the answer is yes, 100%.

I don't know I will ever have as much confidence in a defenseman as I had with Lidstrom. I mean I can remember Crosby coming in 1 on 1 against him in the playoffs, and I would have 0 anxiety that Nick would just diffuse the situation and poke the puck away or limit a quality chance. And he always did. It was just what I expected. He was the most efficient/effective defenseman I have ever seen play. And he was every bit as good defensively as he was offensively, which is a rarity with defenseman now-a-days.

and he managed to find a way to do it all with hardly any physicality which I see mentioned as a negative at times by people that fetishize that stuff for the sake of it but in reality is what lead to him hardly ever being injured

 

[MBH]

I think a lot of these people who talk about Lidstrom being "subtle" weren't around or weren't paying attention when Lidstrom DOMINATED.
The subtlety argument was mostly a post-cap argument that came when younger, faster or more physical defensemen were creating youtube highlights on a regular basis.

 

[MBH]

and he managed to find a way to do it all with hardly any physicality which I see mentioned as a negative at times by people that fetishize that stuff for the sake of it but in reality is what lead to him hardly ever being injured

LOL.
Play a seven game series against a hardnosed, physical defenseman and then come back at with with "people who fetishize physicality for the sake of it."
Jesus.
The worst thing about Lidstrom's non-physical play had nothing to do with Lidstrom. It had to do with all the ultradefensive Red Wings fans who all of the sudden decided physicality was overrated.

 

[MBH]

I think you're actually underselling Yzerman in the Canucks series. Yzerman was literally playing on one good leg. He played in the Olympics and missed 30 games leading up to the 01-02 playoffs. He then played in each of the games and multiple times you saw him using his stick to stand back up while massively grimacing. When he walked to the rink and off the plane and what not, you'd see him limping terribly. He responded by, as the captain and one of the leading scorers and most important offensive players on the roster, dropping down to block shots, take hits, do whatever was needed for winning time. He held a closed door meeting after game 2 when the wheels could have come off and literally dragged the corpse of the Wings back into the series. His knees were so f***ed up after the run he got an osteotomy and a couple other surgeries and missed 66 games of 02-03. Yzerman literally put the Red Wings on his f***ing back doe.

ESPN.com - NHL 2002 Stanley Cup Championship - On his last leg, Yzerman still leads

Yzerman's play vs Vancouver was Roy Hobbs on ice.
I was already an Yzerman slappy, but his 02 playoffs were the stuff of fiction. I have never been that in awe of a professional athlete.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

LOL.
Play a seven game series against a hardnosed, physical defenseman and then come back at with with "people who fetishize physicality for the sake of it."
Jesus.
The worst thing about Lidstrom's non-physical play had nothing to do with Lidstrom. It had to do with all the ultradefensive Red Wings fans who all of the sudden decided physicality was overrated.

I mean, the Wings either won the Cup or were the prohibitive favorite in about 75% of the seasons from 1994-95 to 2008-2009. And every “physical, hard-nosed defenseman” they tried to add blew up terribly in their face. Hatcher, Samuelsson, Krupp. When they added skill on the back-end, it usually did good things for them. Schneider, Duchesne, Murphy, Rafalski.

Chelios did come in and do some great things with Detroit, so that was a good physical D add.

There were definitely some very good reasons why you could turn your focus from adding a physical D to just have a physical D

 

[MBH]

I mean, the Wings either won the Cup or were the prohibitive favorite in about 75% of the seasons from 1994-95 to 2008-2009. And every “physical, hard-nosed defenseman” they tried to add blew up terribly in their face. Hatcher, Samuelsson, Krupp. When they added skill on the back-end, it usually did good things for them. Schneider, Duchesne, Murphy, Rafalski.

Chelios did come in and do some great things with Detroit, so that was a good physical D add.

There were definitely some very good reasons why you could turn your focus from adding a physical D to just have a physical D

Vladimir Konstantinov.
Aaron Ward
Viachaslav Fetisov
Bob Rouse
Jamie Macoun
Chris Chelios
Jiri Fischer
Steve Duchesne (underrated physicality)
Brad Stuart
Niklas Kronwall
Andreas Lilja

These guys all played with some level of physicality.
Not to mention forwards like Shanahan, McCarty, LaPointe, Kocur, Maltby etc

The Wings really didn't get physically soft until that 08 win, and even that team had Stuart and Kronwall and Lilja, and made a point to go out and get McCarty and Drake and rookie Darren Helm hit everything that moved.

 

[ER89]

Thanks for all the replies folks going through them all. Was fun posting in another board and learning a few things about another team.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

Lids' IQ/vision/positioning/active stick etc. were so evolved he didn't need to be physical, which for an NHL level Dman playing 28-30+ TOI on any given night is beyond amazing. Now add that he was consistently the #1/#2 Dman league-wide for ~'95-'10 & shutting down the oppositions best, while putting up HOF offense/pts.


The Perfect Human, as his teammates call him & deservedly so.
We'll never see another like him, the most complete Dman to ever lace 'em up while playing at the highest level.


...also, how many lady byng's was he robbed of? 514pims/1,564gp. That's not even 1 minor pen./6gp. 16/20 seasons he had 30pim (or less). 1 30+, 2 40+, 1 @50.


(Robbed 5-6x + another 5 that the arguement is solid enough to win LB). Don't get me started on Lids' Norris Trophy robberies/snubs.


Lids
91-92 (22) vs. Gretz (34) <-------highway robbery
92-93 (28) vs. Turgeon (26)...*context, likely to take more pims playing D vs. F.
93-94 (26) vs. Gretz (20)...context, see above*
94-95 (6) vs. Francis (18) <-------highway robbery pt. deux
95-96 (20) vs. Kariya (20) it's literally a F***ing tie & yet no co-award even?
96-97 (30) vs. Kariya (6) ok, legitimate/sizeable % differential.
97-98 (18) vs. Francis (20) <-----another snub, NA bias? Robbed, pt. III
98-99 (14) vs. Gretz (14) another tie, but #99's final year...
99-00 18 vs. Demitra (8) (RIP). 2nd legitimate non-win.
00-01 18 vs. Sakic (30) no bias here, nothing to see here folks, move along.
01-02 (20) vs. Francis (18)...context* +(Datsyuk had 4!!...not a typo, FOUR PIMS!) Pavel got robbed!! NA bias strikes again.
02-03 (38) vs. Mogilny (12) 3rd legitimate non-win. +(Datysuk had 16)
03-04 (18) vs. Richards (14)...context* +(Datsyuk had 35)
05-06 (21) vs. Datsyuk (22) (at least our boy won it)
07-09 (40, 40, 31) vs. Datsyuk (20, 20, 22) all 3 legitimate non-wins for Lids.
09-10 (24) vs. MSL(12) ok.
10-11 (22) vs. MSL (12) ok.
11-12 (21) vs. Campbell (12) ok.


BONUS DATSYUK Edition (continued):

Datsyuk
12-13 (14) vs. MSL (14) F***ing tie, MSL wins it, tie goes to the NA?
13-14 (6) vs. ROR (2) <---- That's a Zadina!!
14-15 (8) vs. Hudler (14) Pavel gets robbed for 3rd x
15-16 (14) vs. Kopitar (16) Pavel gets robbed for 4th x


I understand that just b/c pims may be lower & they take into account "gentlemanly play", but they quantify that in pims, so it's hard to see how, ie, Pavs in 01-02 w/4 F***ing doesn't win it.


Your thoughts?

 

[DetroitRed]

Hey guys, I was watching the documentary on NHL's youtube channel- The Joe.

And as a leaf fan in his 20s I realized (well I knew but still) like wtf lol, we've never had the sheer talent that the wings had over the last couple decades.

So my question is this: when Lidstrom was playing did the fans appreciate him and truly felt he was perfect? Like was he actually just so good defensively that he barely made errors?

And my second question is: for those who got to watch all that talent (01-02 team particularly) what the heck was that like? Was there ever a doubt amongst fans that they wouldn't win the cup?

In a way, you couldn't really appreciate Lidstrom completely until he was gone, that's what I experienced. You know, just all the little things he did. The big things, they were obvious, but the little things, the things we really don't keep statistics on, the not so flashy things, all of the sudden they were gone and you'd not been thinking about them much, or maybe not at all, for the last twenty years because you didn't have to. And it was frustrating to go through, like not having a defender all of the sudden who can, for example, just automatically hold a puck in the offensive zone when it's even remotely possible to do so when it's passed back along the boards. You get to where you take those things for granted.

So, when he retired, we panicked and began to overpay for defenders in an effort to put together a team who could do all the things Nick did and then, of course, we began to realize that it's probably never going to happen, "never" literally, because there ain't another Nick Lidstrom out there for anyone to sign. We haven't had a defender in the nine years since he retired who came even remotely close to him in any aspect.

The older timers will probably say not to forget that the Wings could've won more Cups in the '50s and into the '60s if, for example, people who ran the team hadn't got rid of Ted Lindsay because he was union. Or let Red Kelly go a few years later for similarly awful reasons. They had just as much talent but let it go.

As for "doubt," not much doubt by the end of that era in the '00s because by the end of that era you got to be very familiar with what it takes to win a Stanley Cup and you could then tell whether you had what it takes or not that season. We still talk like, "We know what it takes to win and such-and-such guy ain't gonna get us there." We still remember what it takes to win...we just haven't been able to put it together again.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

I remember watching Wings in the late 90s and everyone knew he was a very special player. As time wore on, it's like he got even better. His nick name (aside from St. Nick) is "The Perfect Human". He was elite of nothing, but a master of everything (if that makes sense). EDIT: except hockey IQ, he had elite IQ and postitioning.

I think he has OCD to be honest. I remember seeing a documentary some years ago and what stood out at me was the section of him just being so damn structured. I bet he makes his bed every morning that a quarter would bounce off from. I bet he makes healthy juice drinks every morning exactly the same time every-single-morning.

As for the cup run, that was a nail biter. If they lost, it would have been the biggest embarrassment of sports history. They were built to win the cup, anything less was unacceptable. So as a fan, I felt 2x the pressure-to-win.

OCD, or Anal Retentive. People often use the former, when they actually mean the latter. But yeah, I agree. I remember a feature on him where he went to the same restaurant and had the same pre game meal for like 15 years.

Three things about how good he was.

1) "He only became good once Leetch, Bourque etc were out the way" forgetting that he scored 60 points as a rookie and finished second to Pavel Bure in the Calder.

2) The GDTs from around 2009 on as he started to age and was hampered by a bad elbow. Every few games there would be a comment "wait, was that Lidstrom that gave the puck away?" These comments were unheard of pre-2009

3) His list of D-partners who had a late renaissance or a career year when paired with Lidstrom. Coffey, Murphy, Dandenault, Schneider, Rafalski....I'll do a proper list one of these days.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

Regarding physicality, Lids may not have been laying people out like Scott Stevens, but that doesn't mean he wasn't strong. He was absolutely *ripped* and had legs like tree trunks. There's a photo of him and Datsyuk stood next to each other in shorts at an ASG and it's hilarious to compare Dats's spindly bow legs with Lidstroms thick, muscular legs.

 

[jkutswings]

Lids' IQ/vision/positioning/active stick etc. were so evolved he didn't need to be physical, which for an NHL level Dman playing 28-30+ TOI on any given night is beyond amazing.

This.

Lindstrom redefined excellence at positioning and knowing where the play was going before it got there (along with how to diffuse the situation). In that sense he was the defensive analog to Gretzky, seeing the game within the game better than anybody else.

It was rarely a highlight because it was so smooth.

 

[Ghost of Ethan Hunt]

These.

Lids, Larionov & Gretz playing 5-D chess. Mid 90's DPE, over 70%++ of the league still playing 1-D Checkers.


With miles of '80's video of Gretz & Igor, one would think someone could emulate some/much of their game by the '90's. Then Lids comes along & redefines the position (sorry Mr. Orr, era adjusted & 2-way, 200ft. game, Lids was better, though your skating & ppg offense is legendary).

 

[SirKillalot]

My favorite hockey experience may be realizing that it's Lidstrom defending a two on one. At first you're panicking "oh god, Sakic and Forsberg are coming in on a two on one, we're toast. Oh wait it's Lids. Whew. We're good. At best they'll get a shot from the outside"

A Lidstrom defending a 2 on 1 is almost as watching a 2 on 2 play.
I think a play like that is exactly what summarize and show how tactical/practical Lidstrom played hockey and hence wasn't so often so very fancy, but super effective most of the time.

Lidstrom played defense like a frog catches flies. Quick, smooth and with others wondering can we get a replay of what just occurred.

 

[jaster]

LOL.
Play a seven game series against a hardnosed, physical defenseman and then come back at with with "people who fetishize physicality for the sake of it."
Jesus.
The worst thing about Lidstrom's non-physical play had nothing to do with Lidstrom. It had to do with all the ultradefensive Red Wings fans who all of the sudden decided physicality was overrated.

You loved to bring up Lidstrom's lack of physicality back when he played.

As if it mattered.

You definitely fetishize that aspect of hockey. "Play a seven game series against a hardnosed, physical defenseman and then come back at me." Please tell us all what that's like. Was it in ball hockey?

 

[jaster]

This.

Lindstrom redefined excellence at positioning and knowing where the play was going before it got there (along with how to diffuse the situation). In that sense he was the defensive analog to Gretzky, seeing the game within the game better than anybody else.

It was rarely a highlight because it was so smooth.

Part of what made Lidstrom defensively dominant was that he was (and this should surprise no one) extremely studious of opposing players. He had a book of probably every offensive player in the league, in his head, that he was able to access during play. The dude had the skills and talents that were apparent, but he was also a master at preparation.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Part of what made Lidstrom defensively dominant was that he was (and this should surprise no one) extremely studious of opposing players. He had a book of probably every offensive player in the league, in his head, that he was able to access during play. The dude had the skills and talents that were apparent, but he was also a master at preparation.

He is the most consistently great player I have seen. Lidstrom was so good almost every time out. Like in 95% of our games he was just fantastic. That is really the thing I will always remember most, he dominated the proceedings offensively and defensively almost every night. It wasn't even often crazy stuff, it was just the right play over and over. He basically played the game with analytics that he developed. There is a Swedish book about it, where Lidstrom admits he coached his mind to respond to situations the same way repetitively once he had diagnosed the best outcome. Elite hockey mind, one of the very best of all-time in that department. I think he is the #2 D-man in the history of the game. You could make the argument nobody controlled the game more for a longer period of time which is high praise.

 

[dragonballgtz]

I will always be amazed, a little bitter, he never won a Hart Trophy.

 

[Lil Sebastian Cossa]

You loved to bring up Lidstrom's lack of physicality back when he played.

As if it mattered.

You definitely fetishize that aspect of hockey. "Play a seven game series against a hardnosed, physical defenseman and then come back at me." Please tell us all what that's like. Was it in ball hockey?

I mean, if you can get a truly great hardnosed, physical defenseman like Pronger or Stevens? Hell yeah, that would be terrifying. However, there are not many physical defensemen who were actually good enough to be leaned on that heavily that they would wear you out. Playing that physical of a game takes a toll on you as well. I mean, look at the 07-08 Wings. Yes, you had Stuart who was hardnosed as could be and Kronwall who could line up a guy and blast him into next week... but what made that defense so damn good was they would just wet blanket you. You'd have Lidstrom and Rafalski able to work with the forwards to just be able to hold onto the puck forever. You had Datsyuk able to singlehandedly steal it back to disrupt a lot of offensive chances before they even started and Zetterberg was a 1C, 40 goal guy who could skate with a guy draped on his back and put the puck on someone's stick and go back with a stifling backcheck. See his "Conn-Smythe winning shift". Dallas Drake did hit anything that moved and that was absolutely a necessity for that roster, but by and large, they kept the other team from mounting offensive charges by derailing pressure before it even started. In the Stanley Cup Finals that year, they had double digit periods of time where the Pittsburgh Penguins didn't get a shot off.

The Red Wings didn't win because they beat other teams up. They wore them down because they had guys who were just energizer bunnies who could keep going no matter what. They controlled the play to a point that you had to expend a ton of energy just to take the puck away from them.