Nick Lidstrom Article

[Eddie_Shack]

I know you meant to say that the other way around.

I know I meant what I said I knew.

I'm not trying to start a Bourque-Lidstrom debate here, I'm taking exception to the assertion that Lidstrom is having some "par for the course" season for a 40 year old HOFer. He's not. He's fucking wrecking shit. He's on pace for a PPG season (not sure if he'll keep it up, but it doesn't look like he's slowing down) even with his defense partners either getting mauled in the jaw or looking like slow, old giveaway machines.

Chris Chelios was mentioned as having a similar season in his 40th year. When he turned 40, he was in the middle of a 39 point season. When he was 40, he had a 19 point season. He wasn't even playing against top lines, because he had a young stud defenseman named Nick Lidstrom bearing the load.

MacInnis as a 40 year old... let's not even remember that season, we'll pretend it didn't happen. He basically didn't play, and retired. He had a nice season as a 39 year old though. He was having a season not unlike Lidstrom's this year. But he wasn't 40.

The point I'm making, is that Norris caliber seasons at age 40 don't pop around every 3 years. Chelios wasn't close to being in the running, Chopper and Bourque made very strong cases but they were beat out... by Nick Lidstrom. Blake wasn't close. Coffey was a joke by then. Leetch never made it that far. Niedermayer probably could have done it, but we'll never know.

 

[BostonAJ]

Alright, I just checked Lidstrom's stats. I've been avoiding doing this because I didn't want to see. He's on a retarded pace. I'm sickened. The Wings are unbelievable.

But Jiri Hudler totally sucks this year. Big time. So sit on that you motherfucker. :p

 

[quoipourquoi]

I know I meant what I said I knew.

I'm not trying to start a Bourque-Lidstrom debate here, I'm taking exception to the assertion that Lidstrom is having some "par for the course" season for a 40 year old HOFer. He's not. He's fucking wrecking shit. He's on pace for a PPG season (not sure if he'll keep it up, but it doesn't look like he's slowing down) even with his defense partners either getting mauled in the jaw or looking like slow, old giveaway machines.

Chris Chelios was mentioned as having a similar season in his 40th year. When he turned 40, he was in the middle of a 39 point season. When he was 40, he had a 19 point season. He wasn't even playing against top lines, because he had a young stud defenseman named Nick Lidstrom bearing the load.

MacInnis as a 40 year old... let's not even remember that season, we'll pretend it didn't happen. He basically didn't play, and retired. He had a nice season as a 39 year old though. He was having a season not unlike Lidstrom's this year. But he wasn't 40.

The point I'm making, is that Norris caliber seasons at age 40 don't pop around every 3 years. Chelios wasn't close to being in the running, Chopper and Bourque made very strong cases but they were beat out... by Nick Lidstrom. Blake wasn't close. Coffey was a joke by then. Leetch never made it that far. Niedermayer probably could have done it, but we'll never know.

In terms of points, yes, but in terms of effectiveness, Chris Chelios in 2002 and Al MacInnis in 2003 are as good as Lidstrom is right now. Lidstrom was NOT "bearing the load" in 2001-02. Chelios was keeping up point-for-point with him at even strength (29) while being on the ice for far fewer goals. He was nowhere near being protected, as they had the same even strength time on ice- the difference being that Lidstrom played far more on the powerplay. That's why he finished a close second for the Norris.

As for not even looking at Al MacInnis' 2003 because he was 39... sorry he was born in July, I guess? I think that's a silly cut-off to make. Al MacInnis was the offensive scoring leader OVER a young Lidstrom. He was incredible late in his career (his 22nd season) to the extent that Lidstrom is now, and that's the point.

And before we go gaga for Lidstrom's offense this year, let's not lose sight of the fact that he's ONLY registering on the Red Wings' insane powerplay, and was a cumulative even strength liability up until their last game or so. He's on pace for roughly 28-30 even strength points- just like Chelios and MacInnis- so, no, I maintain my point that it's not that special relative to other HOFer defensemen.

If I had to rank each of the aforementioned years, I'd actually have Bourque and Lidstrom trailing Chelios and MacInnis. Chelios had the strongest defensive year of the bunch as the Red Wings' even strength rock, but there wasn't a flaw in MacInnis' game in 2003, and the Blues didn't miss a beat without Chris Pronger. Consider that for a moment.



EDIT: Nicklas Lidstrom relies on the powerplay as much as Teemu Selanne. There, I said it!

 

[Automattic]

Players all vote him the best for his shutdown D, not his offense. That's all icing on the cake.

 

[Eddie_Shack]

In terms of points, yes, but in terms of effectiveness, Chris Chelios in 2002 and Al MacInnis in 2003 are as good as Lidstrom is right now. Lidstrom was NOT "bearing the load" in 2001-02. Chelios was keeping up point-for-point with him at even strength (29) while being on the ice for far fewer goals. He was nowhere near being protected, as they had the same even strength time on ice- the difference being that Lidstrom played far more on the powerplay. That's why he finished a close second for the Norris.

As for not even looking at Al MacInnis' 2003 because he was 39... sorry he was born in July, I guess? I think that's a silly cut-off to make. Al MacInnis was the offensive scoring leader OVER a young Lidstrom. He was incredible late in his career (his 22nd season) to the extent that Lidstrom is now, and that's the point.

And before we go gaga for Lidstrom's offense this year, let's not lose sight of the fact that he's ONLY registering on the Red Wings' insane powerplay, and was a cumulative even strength liability up until their last game or so. He's on pace for roughly 28-30 even strength points- just like Chelios and MacInnis- so, no, I maintain my point that it's not that special relative to other HOFer defensemen.

If I had to rank each of the aforementioned years, I'd actually have Bourque and Lidstrom trailing Chelios and MacInnis. Chelios had the strongest defensive year of the bunch as the Red Wings' even strength rock, but there wasn't a flaw in MacInnis' game in 2003, and the Blues didn't miss a beat without Chris Pronger. Consider that for a moment.



EDIT: Nicklas Lidstrom relies on the powerplay as much as Teemu Selanne. There, I said it!

What I meant was Lidstrom played the top lines. When Iginla, Forsberg, Modano, Kariya, or Tkachuk came to town, it was Lidstrom that Bowman sent out to defend, not Chelios. Lidstrom had more PP time not because Bowman kept accidentally sending him out instead of Chelios, but because he was better on the PP. That's what I meant be "bearing the load". Break it down however you want, Nick played more minutes against better competition.

I'm not overlooking MacInnis's last real season, it was incredible. MacInnis was an incredible player. He wasn't forty though, I guess I'm just being a picky asshole there. I can't remember, why did he retire the season after? Didn't he play a few games and then get concussed or something? I can't remember the story on that.

The rest of what you said is either an opinion I disagree with or fact that I cannot refute, but calling Lidstrom a liability is laughable. Lidstrom played the worst defense of his career last year, and he was far from a liability. He made more bad decisions and giveaways than I've ever seen him make, but he was still a top five D in the league. This year while he's been struggling in the +/- department, he's been near flawless defensively. I'm not sure what's at the root of that stat, be it Howard's sophomore slump, injuries on D, Ericsson and Rafalski's seemingly insatiable need to make poor puck decisions and hand over goals, or Chris Osgood. But Nick has been far and away the team's safest and most reliable defenseman this season. You can disagree with me all you want, I always respect your opinion even when it's the polar opposite of mine because you know your shit and you back your statements up, but "liability" and "Lidstrom" should never be used in the same sentence until he goes down to State Farm and tries to add his son on his driver's insurance.