Lidstrom

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,085
8,210
Just slowly back away from the thread, Dotter. I feel embarrassed on your behalf and it's making me uncomfortable. Please just Homer your way out of this one :laugh:

giphy.gif
 

Run the Jewels

Make Detroit Great Again
Jun 22, 2006
13,817
1,750
In the Garage
A few thoughts:
  1. Yes plus/minus can be a wonky, flawed stat. However Lidstrom was often tasked with shutting down the top lines and his career plus/minus is flat out absurd.
  2. He wasn't always paired with the best defense partners, but his defense partner almost always had a career plus/minus year alongside Lidstrom.
  3. He only got to play a couple seasons with Brian Rafalski, but if he had played with that caliber defensive partner his entire career his stats likely would have been even more gaudy.
  4. Yes, you almost always felt a sense of calmness when Lidstrom was playing an odd man rush. He obviously did not focus on physical play, but his positioning and stickwork were exceptional.
  5. He really turned around that 02 series against Vancouver with his goal from center ice. There were definitely some nerves before that goal.
  6. He was definitely appreciated in Detroit. The fanbase largely knew just how great he was and that it was rare to have a player of his caliber.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OgeeOgelthorpe

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Lidstrom had a long career with several phases.
Early in his career he was a mobile, smooth offensive defensemen whose defense was a bit underappreciated.
In 95-96 - he turned into all-star nick.
From 97-03 - he was monster nick.
I personally don't think he was ever quite the same in the post-cap era.
But he was still one of the best of the business and an absolute beast on the PP.

I think this "Lidstrom is subtle" trope came about near the end of his career, when fans were defending Norris trophies against speedy young defensemen or hard-nosed, hitting defensemen.
Lidstrom was at one point around the turn of the century perhaps the most dominant player in the sport. That's not subtle.
Don't let these 2009 arguments fool you about who 2000 Lidstrom was.
 

Run the Jewels

Make Detroit Great Again
Jun 22, 2006
13,817
1,750
In the Garage
Did someone really say Lidstrom didn’t have an elite shot? He had one of the best slapshots of all time…

His stretch passes were also one of his biggest assets. An opposing team thinks they have a great scoring chance with an add man rush against Lidstrom only to have him gain control of the puck and send one of his forwards approaching the offensive zone with speed and the puck landing right on his tape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexislafreniere

OgeeOgelthorpe

Baldina
Feb 29, 2020
16,999
17,978
Lidstrom had a long career with several phases.
Early in his career he was a mobile, smooth offensive defensemen whose defense was a bit underappreciated.
In 95-96 - he turned into all-star nick.
From 97-03 - he was monster nick.
I personally don't think he was ever quite the same in the post-cap era.
But he was still one of the best of the business and an absolute beast on the PP.

I think this "Lidstrom is subtle" trope came about near the end of his career
, when fans were defending Norris trophies against speedy young defensemen or hard-nosed, hitting defensemen.
Lidstrom was at one point around the turn of the century perhaps the most dominant player in the sport. That's not subtle.
Don't let these 2009 arguments fool you about who 2000 Lidstrom was.

Dude people were talking about Lidstrom's subtle perfection going back to 1997.

Also post 2004 lockout Lidstrom was probably even better between 2005 and 2009 than he was 2000 to 2003. He even stated that the rest he got during the lockout left him feeling rejuvinated. We probably got a few extra years of prime Lidstrom because of it.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,200
14,889
crease
Dude people were talking about Lidstrom's subtle perfection going back to 1997.

That was the prime era when guys like Darian Hatcher were routinely destroying dudes on SportsCenter. So when you said Lidstrom was the best defender, yeah, it was a little more understated to the average viewer in 1997, particularly if other guys were outscoring him. The depth of coverage and accessibility wasn't a fraction what it is today. Most of us were still dialing in on the phone line to look up scores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lazlo Hollyfeld

OgeeOgelthorpe

Baldina
Feb 29, 2020
16,999
17,978
That was the prime era when guys like Darian Hatcher were routinely destroying dudes on SportsCenter. So when you said Lidstrom was the best defender, yeah, it was a little more understated to the average viewer in 1997, particularly if other guys were outscoring him. The depth of coverage and accessibility wasn't a fraction what it is today. Most of us were still dialing in on the phone line to look up scores.

Oh, I remember those days well. Local coverage from Mickey Redmond and Dave Strader (then later Ken Daniels) and the knowledgeable commentators like Darren Pang, Bryan Engblom and Ron McLean were talking up how precise and effortless Lidstrom was. It was a lot of the guys touting the "soft European" bullshit that ignored Lidstrom until he finally won a Norris.

I vaguely remember a HNIC broadcast back between 97 and 99 and McLean was talking about how great Lidstrom was and Don Cherry chimed in with something along the lines of, "Nicky's a great guy but I just wish he'd wail on guys more!"
 

jaster

Unregistered User
Jun 8, 2007
13,085
8,210
Oh, I remember those days well. Local coverage from Mickey Redmond and Dave Strader (then later Ken Daniels) and the knowledgeable commentators like Darren Pang, Bryan Engblom and Ron McLean were talking up how precise and effortless Lidstrom was. It was a lot of the guys touting the "soft European" bullshit that ignored Lidstrom until he finally won a Norris.

I vaguely remember a HNIC broadcast back between 97 and 99 and McLean was talking about how great Lidstrom was and Don Cherry chimed in with something along the lines of, "Nicky's a great guy but I just wish he'd wail on guys more!"

Grapes said that?? Nooooooooooo :sarcasm:

I remember how Grapes was so happy for Yzerman when he started winning, but never hesitated with his addendum about how unfortunate it was that Detroit decided to roster so many Russians and other Euros.

Now all you kids out there, always remember to champion xenophobia!

don_cherry_march_3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nut Upstrom

Nut Upstrom

You dirty dog!
Dec 18, 2010
3,206
2,578
Florida
Lidstrom had a long career with several phases.
Early in his career he was a mobile, smooth offensive defensemen whose defense was a bit underappreciated.
In 95-96 - he turned into all-star nick.
From 97-03 - he was monster nick.
I personally don't think he was ever quite the same in the post-cap era.
But he was still one of the best of the business and an absolute beast on the PP.

I think this "Lidstrom is subtle" trope came about near the end of his career, when fans were defending Norris trophies against speedy young defensemen or hard-nosed, hitting defensemen.
Lidstrom was at one point around the turn of the century perhaps the most dominant player in the sport. That's not subtle.
Don't let these 2009 arguments fool you about who 2000 Lidstrom was.
He was subtle though. If one can be subtly dominant then Nick certainly was. If someone who had never watched hockey before were to sit and watch one Nick Lidstrom game, he wouldn't walk away saying that number 5 in red was dominant. That dominance would be apparent after watching game after game of number 5 displaying the same steady flawless excellence.

Yes, I said flawless. Before you call bullshit, I know he was not actually flawless or perfect - just as close as we're likely to see in a hockey player.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
He was subtle though. If one can be subtly dominant then Nick certainly was. If someone who had never watched hockey before were to sit and watch one Nick Lidstrom game, he wouldn't walk away saying that number 5 in red was dominant. That dominance would be apparent after watching game after game of number 5 displaying the same steady flawless excellence.

Yes, I said flawless. Before you call bullshit, I know he was not actually flawless or perfect - just as close as we're likely to see in a hockey player.

Man, you can say that about most defensemen in the NHL.
Nick Lidstrom wasn't any more subtle than Macinis. Not much different from Bourqe (less physical, sure).
The reason why he was more "subtle" than Pronger is because he wasn't hitting and cross-checking guys. He was more subtle late in his career because he didn't do puck rushes that wind up in youtube videos.
But most defensemen play that subtle brand of hockey. Most defense is subtle work. Angles. Stickwork.

There aren't many NHL defensemen who would catch the eyes of a non-hockey watcher - even with the rise of the small, skilled defenseman.
 

MBH

Players Play
Jul 20, 2019
13,497
7,298
SE Michigan
redwingsnow.com
Dude people were talking about Lidstrom's subtle perfection going back to 1997.

Also post 2004 lockout Lidstrom was probably even better between 2005 and 2009 than he was 2000 to 2003. He even stated that the rest he got during the lockout left him feeling rejuvinated. We probably got a few extra years of prime Lidstrom because of it.

Lidstrom DOMINATED. He's domination was plainly obvious. Subtle domination is a f***ing oxymoron outside a few S&M clubs.

And Bullshit on pre vs post-lockout Lidstrom.
Lidstrom was perhaps the best player in the NHL from 2000-2003.

He had a down year in 03-04, no question.
So that's probably where the rejuvenation concept comes from.
 

Lazlo Hollyfeld

The jersey ad still sucks
Mar 4, 2004
28,131
26,425
Lidstrom DOMINATED. He's domination was plainly obvious. Subtle domination is a f***ing oxymoron outside a few S&M clubs.

And Bullshit on pre vs post-lockout Lidstrom.
Lidstrom was perhaps the best player in the NHL from 2000-2003.

He had a down year in 03-04, no question.
So that's probably where the rejuvenation concept comes from.
It comes down to semantics at a certain point but I think there is a way to dominate a game subtly. Mostly meaning Lidstrom would control the game but there might not be any highlight reel play from the game.

Bourque had his physical play. MacInnis the legendary booming slapshot. Pronger the physical play and impressive mobility for his size.

Watching Lidstrom break up a play with the flick of his stick is a lot more subtle than watching Pronger level a guy. Him walking the line and firing a pinpoint slapshot that gets through traffic is more subtle than MacInnis whaling it into guys bodies and watching them crumple. Having fantastic gap control and knowing the exact moment to challenge for the puck is subtle.

That's all people are getting at.

And I think as time goes on people who aren't Wings fans forget just how at the time a quiet European defenseman who wasn't physical was easily dismissed. That wasn't the kind of hockey celebrated in the 90s.
 

Nut Upstrom

You dirty dog!
Dec 18, 2010
3,206
2,578
Florida
Man, you can say that about most defensemen in the NHL.
Nick Lidstrom wasn't any more subtle than Macinis. Not much different from Bourqe (less physical, sure).
The reason why he was more "subtle" than Pronger is because he wasn't hitting and cross-checking guys. He was more subtle late in his career because he didn't do puck rushes that wind up in youtube videos.
But most defensemen play that subtle brand of hockey. Most defense is subtle work. Angles. Stickwork.

There aren't many NHL defensemen who would catch the eyes of a non-hockey watcher - even with the rise of the small, skilled defenseman.

I am comparing the subtlty of Nick Lidstrom to other dominant players not to other defenseman - and he was both of those, subtle and dominant. To limit the discussion to dominant d-men, Al Macinis was only arguably dominant on the pp or when winding up those one timers - nothing subtle there. Pronger was dominant and not subtle due to his punishing physical game and his dirty plays - again, not subtle. It makes no sense to shrug off Nick's subtle domination by trying to paint all great defensemen with that brush, it's simply not accurate.
Subtly dominant is an oxymoron? I might agree with you generally, but it applies in his case. But you are correct, his excellence was subtle and yet he was dominant, you have used both words to describe him already, not sure why we are discussing this as we seem to agree. Stepping off your merry go round now.
 

SirKillalot

Registered User
Feb 27, 2008
5,863
274
Norway
I think one of the more important things Lidstrom did, which have been touch upon here earlier. Is time and space control. When he was on the ice, for the absolute majority of the time he was the one that set the tone for time and space and opponents had to adjust to that or try and fail.

Of course now and then, someone would get past Lidstrom, because even though he was an absolute stud positional wise and hand-eye coordination and stick work, he was not the fastest, but it's at the amount of one being able to count them per season. When it becomes so "talked upon" that every one brings up a -4 game, that says most of it when the incidents is so few that only one is really remembered.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->