The Hockey News: Sam McCaig's blog: THN.com Blog: How Lidstrom stacks up against the all-time greats

THN.com Blog: How Lidstrom stacks up against the all-time greats

Nicklas Lidstrom's resume stacks up well against the game's best players in history. (Getty Images)

Sam McCaig
2009-10-17 09:08:00

When The Hockey News published its definitive The Top 100 NHL Players Of All-Time back in 1997, Nicklas Lidstrom was nowhere to be found.

At the time, Lidstrom was a 27-year-old defenseman playing in his sixth NHL season with the Detroit Red Wings. He didn’t own a Stanley Cup ring. He had never won the Norris Trophy. He did appear in the 1996 NHL All-Star Game, but he had never been named a first- or second-team all-star.

A lot has changed in the past dozen years.

Lidstrom has since collected four Cup rings, six Norris Trophies and nine first-team all-star selections (as well as one second-team berth). He won the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoff MVP in 2002. Most recently, he became the first European defenseman – and just the eighth in league history – to collect 1,000 NHL points.

So, maybe it’s time to rewrite history a bit and find a spot for Lidstrom among the game’s all-time greats. At least, let’s see where the smooth Swedish blueliner fits among the best rearguards the NHL has ever seen.

(Note: The voters for The Top 100 book represented a who’s who of the hockey world, including players, coaches, GMs, journalists and hockey historians, along with experts on the past and present NHL.)

Bobby Orr ranked No. 2 in The Top 100 behind Wayne Gretzky and Orr forerunner Doug Harvey was next (among D-men) at No. 6.

Orr (eight) and Harvey (seven) are the only two rearguards to win more Norris Trophies than Lidstrom. And while it’s nigh on impossible to truly compare players from such drastically different eras, it would be difficult to argue that Lidstrom has had a similar impact on the way the game is played as did those two revolutionary defensemen, so let’s move on.

Eddie Shore, who starred for the Bruins in the 1930s, was rated the No. 10 NHLer of all-time. No other defenseman has won as many as Shore’s four Hart Trophies, not even Orr (three). Again, we’re comparing different eras, but Shore’s four MVP baubles indicate that he was a more dominant force in his day than Lidstrom has been in his.

It’s the next cut of elite defensemen where Lidstrom likely fits in, somewhere among the Ray Bourques (No. 14), Denis Potvins (No. 19), Larry Robinsons (No. 24) and Paul Coffeys (No. 28).

Bourque is a good comparison; the longtime Bruin (and Stanley Cup-winning Av) played a similar style to Lidstrom. That is, they’re both smart, two-way defensemen with impeccable positioning, great passing and the ability to lend a calming influence no matter how intense the circumstances.

Related Links

They do all the little things that go unnoticed, from blocking shots to breaking up plays to firing perfect outlet passes.

The offensive side of the game was second nature to both players and few in history have been their match as quarterbacks on the power play.

In fact, they’re both so good offensively that their defensive acumen probably has been underrated; yet, they’re always out there in the final minutes of a close contest, protecting leads and taking care of their own-zone business.

Neither Bourque nor Lidstrom has a weak point in their game; they might not have been physical forces, but they certainly never wilted when the going got rough. They didn’t revolutionize the game, but they were revelations; they’re about as close to all-around perfect as you’re going to see in an NHL defenseman. (I know what you’re thinking: “So what does that mean, that Orr was better than perfect?!” Yes, that’s exactly what it means. Any arguments? Didn’t think so.)

Lidstrom, with his six Norris Trophies, has to be considered the best defenseman of his generation. Fans of Scott Niedermayer and Chris Pronger and Zdeno Chara may disagree, but Lidstrom’s body of work speaks for itself.

And, as the best blueliner the league has seen in the past 20 years, the Red Wings great deserves to be slotted somewhere in the No. 15-20 range, among the very best NHLers of all-time.

One final note: Lidstrom, who turns 40 in April, is in the final year of his contract. Wings observers believe he’ll return for another season or two, but Lidstrom himself has been quiet on the subject.

As usual, he’s letting his elite action on the ice do his speaking for him.

Sam McCaig is The Hockey News' senior copy editor and a contributor to THN.com. His blog appears every weekend and his column, From The Point, appears regularly.

For more great profiles, news and views from the world of hockey, subscribe to The Hockey News magazine.

COMMENTS (6)

Sort: Oldest | Newest Filter: All | Videos

tommyboy Posted
(2009-10-21 01:08:46)

I agree with most of the other posters on here. I never saw Orr, Harvey, or Shore play, but of the guys in my lifetime I think Lidstrom is hands-down the best defenseman. Bourque was great, but I saw him get walked too many times in his career to place him ahead of Lidstrom. If you don't believe me, check out the Mayday call on youtube; Brad May, yes that Brad May, walks through him to knock the B's out of the playoffs. I couldn't see that happening to Lidstrom. If anyone remembers in the 1997 Finals, everybody was sure that Konstintinov would be matched up against the Legion of Doom. Instead, Scotty Bowman put Lidstrom against the Lindros line. Lindros didn't score until about two minutes left in the series. In hindsight it was the obvious move to make, but at the time people were scratching their heads over the matchup. That Scotty Bowman sure knows his stuff.

singollo Posted
(2009-10-19 10:39:50)

This may be a first, but I find myself in complete agreement with scubasteve and brian_kemp : ) It definately is time to re-evaluate Lidstrom's place in hockey's pantheon. As stated, Orr obviously reigns supreme among rearguards and Harvey is a pretty safe lock for the Number 2 spot, but I'd have no problem ranking Lidstrom third. My arguments are the same: if the only reason for Shore's higher ranking is his collection of Hart Trophies, that's not a valid argument- had the Norris been in existence in his day, one could logically assume a few of his Harts would be replaced by a Norris or two. I also agree with brian that Lidstrom's lack of a Hart Trophy is an injustice; but overall I think Nick's career is finally getting the appropriate recongition. Bottom line: if you asked me who I'd rather have on my team, Ray Bourque or Nick Lidstrom, I'd like Lidstrom in a heartbeat- and I can't think of much higher praise than that.

scubasteve Posted
(2009-10-19 09:01:57)

I actually have that book and this article got my interested in re looking into it and your real question should be where should Yzerman be ranked seeing as you guys placed him at 78 behind players like Jagr and Lindros. Brett Hull is also far to low on the list for scoring more than 700 goals in his career. I would definatly think he should be higher than 64.

petrov32 Posted
(2009-10-17 19:05:08)

I can agree with 15-20th place for now. But in 5-10 years when we look back again I think he might creep up a few more spots.

brian_kemp Posted
(2009-10-17 14:47:45)

Like most of Lidstrom's recognition, I think how great he was will only really be understood later than it should have. It took a bit longer than it should have for people to really get that he was great, because his game isn't about highlight reel end to end rushes or crushing hits. More often than not, Lidstroms best work went barely noticed because of its sublety and apparent lack of effort. He just was where he needed to be, and got the job done. No sane person would argue he is better than Orr, and Harvey was the reason for the greatest dynasty in NHL history, so that one is tough to argue, as well. Eddie Shore won four Harts and that is a big deal, but like scubasteve said, that was an era when defensemen were more likely to win a Hart. (His four Harts didn't seem to be enough to move him past Harvey.) Personally, I've long thought it was one of the bigger injustices that Lidstrom hasn't garnered more mention when Hart voting comes up. Maybe when he retires and the Red Wings have to change the way they do things, people will finally realize that Lidstrom was the key to everything that the Wings do. I never saw Shore play, most of us alive today haven't so it's hard to say who was better, but I don't think it's an open and shut case. Obviously, in his Hart years Shore would have won the Norris had it existed, but would he have won two more, or a Conn Smythe? According to wikipedia, he was a seven time first team all star, with no second team berths. Lidstrom has him beat there. Lidstrom has more Cup championships, although statistically speaking, playing in a six team league, it should have been easier for Shore to win. I just don't see this being a clear cut choice between those two.

scubasteve Posted
(2009-10-17 10:46:53)

can't really argue with you over Lidstrom of Shore seeing as I obviously had never seen him play, but I gotta disagree with your judgement for placing him higher than Lidstrom. So yes he won four Hart trophies but as you said yourself the played in different eras. Since the Hart was first awarded there has been 8 different defencemen to win the Hart, so yes Shores 4 is a big achievement there. But also consider that 6 of those won it during the first 21 years it was awared (1924-44). With 9 of the 21 winners being defencemen (yes I understand 4 of those 9 were Shores) this was obviously an era that a defencemen winning the Hart seeing as only 2 defencemen have won one since. Orr is in a class of his own while Pronger did win a hart but that also was his only season to win a norris. If you try to argue that Lidstrom never even won one though do you not fail to remember just 2 seasons ago when there was heavy arguements for him to win it. The problem is since he's hit his prime he's been playing in an age of offensive juggernuts while the only offensive superstar that could compare from Shores time was Mornez. Also, once again I won't argue that Lidstrom's better than Harvey but once again I don't like your reason to as why solely being they played in different areas and Lidstrom did not revolutionize the game the same way. I thought this was a list of the 100-Greatest Players not 100-Most Influencial Players. I'll never compare his to Orr since in my opinion hes the greatest hockey player to ever lace up a pair of skates but don't rank players higher solely because they played in different eras because who is to say that this era does not provide better players (at the top end of the spectrum at least)?