Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Ben Grimm]

Please give a reason why your player is better and keep in mind that that it takes a great team with great players to win trophies including individual ones like the Norris.

Click to read more...

 

[Dalton]

I've seen them both play and Bourque was better. Much better. No brainer better.

 

[Slapshooter]

Bourque was better offensively than Lidstrom and only slightly less constistent (and yet still one of the best) in a defensive play. Ray also had a slight edge in the physical game, while not actually tough player either.

I can understand arguments for Lidstrom, considering his forever lasting elite career, but Bourque was the better of the two.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Bourque had both the higher peak and greater longetivity.

So... Bourque.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

All-Star selections:

Bourque - 13 first team, 6 second team, 19 total

Lidstrom - 10 1st, 2 2nd, 12 total

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

At his best Bourque was better. He was also one of the top 4 d-man for pretty much his entire career. Lidstrom, while great, only has post-35 edge on Bourque. Ages 20-35, Bourque has a big edge, and that's 75% of his career.

So begrudgingly, I have to choose Bourque, despite being a bigger Lidstrom fan.

 

[DaveG]

Bourque was the better of the two, no question to me. And that's not a knock against Lidstrom (who I have right behind him on my dman rankings). But having seen both of them, Bourque just flat out dominated games in ways that I haven't seen from Lidstrom. He was better offensively and much more physical then Nic, Nic I would give the edge to in consistency and positional play, but not by much.

 

[Big Phil]

When this topic comes up, there are two posters who respond to it. The first will be the one who was old enough to watch Bourque. The second is the one who wasn't. The former picks Bourque all the time. The latter, sometimes, picks Lidstrom.

The influx of talented defensemen in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s was astounding and in the mold of the ones in the 1970s. There was much better competition for the Norris when you are competing with Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, MacInnis, Stevens, etc. Lidstrom had those guys at the tail end of their careers and defensemen a notch below such as Blake, Niedermayer post 2003, Pronger when healthy and Chara 2004 and up. The second group is much weaker than the first one.

So from a stats level Bourque wins, from a level where you compare him to his peers he wins, and even the eye test shows that Bourque was more often the central focus of his team, sometimes even the offensive catalyst. I don't think Lidstrom ever had to be relied on as much as Bourque did. People talk about Lidstrom's longevity, which is nice, but Bourque was in the NHL just as long and for just as old, not to mention finishing 2nd in Norris voting his last NHL season.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm sure it is Bourque.

Norris counting is one thing, but all-star team counting is even more important.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I know this is going to come as a shock but I'm taking Bourque.

He played at a higher overall level and for longer.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Bourque for me (I think). Probably the second best d-man ever. When grading the top2-5 it is extremely hard to get the optimal order. It is a matter of personal opinion. One could argue Bourque is 2:nd or 5:th and still have good arguments.

Or maybe Lids is better I voted Bourque anyway. Lids last Norris put things up side down. He probably edged Potvin put the rest of the top-5 is hard . Except Orr that is. Harvey, Robinson, Bourque, Lids, Potvin are clearly the second tier


/Cheers

 

[danincanada]

Lidstrom. He won more both individually and as part of a team and is arguably the greatest defensive player ever. He also faced the world's best for his entire NHL career unlike Bourque. Lidstrom will go down in history as the better of the two because of this. Bourque isn't far behind though.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He won more both individually

Against inferior competition.

and as part of a team

Playing on a powerhouse/dynasty.

and is arguably the greatest defensive player ever.

Agreed.

He also faced the world's best for his entire NHL career unlike Bourque.

Heh, yeah because missing a handful of Russian players for about 9 years out of his 22 is something to hang your hat on. Nevermind that he faced a PRIME Gretzky and Mario at great length. Hmmmm... a handful of Russians or those two, wonder who would be tougher to face

Lidstrom will go down in history as the better of the two because of this.

In your opinion but I assure you it's in the minority.
Hell, Yzerman vs Sakic polls are closer than this one.

 

[Eisen]

I love Lids but I can't vote him over Bourque.

 

[Big Phil]

Heh, yeah because missing a handful of Russian players for about 9 years out of his 22 is something to hang your hat on. Nevermind that he faced a PRIME Gretzky and Mario at great length. Hmmmm... a handful of Russians or those two, wonder who would be tougher to face

Yeah I agree that isn't something to cling onto. Bourque did great in the 1980s and 1990s. The way he played in the Canada Cups showed me as well that he was still the best defenseman in the world

 

[Filatov2Kovalev2Bonk]

Bourque:

• 19 (?) consecutive post-season all-stars.
• 90 point season(s).
• Highest scoring defenseman of all time.
• Carried the Bruins for a long time (yeah, Neely, Sweeneys, etc.)
• Almost perfect positioning, and his stocky body/low center of gravity allowed him to absorb hits and deliver them.
• Good for 5-10 shots on any powerplay.
• Played in same era as Mark Howe, Paul Coffey, Brian Leetch, Scott Stevens, Phil Housley, Rob Blake, etc. etc. and was at worst their equal (give Offense to Coffey and Housley) and at tims their better.
• Trememndous durability, how many games did he miss, a handful?

 

[revolverjgw]

Bourque, by a slim but clear margin. Elite defensive anchor and the offense ran through him, too. And 19 all-stars is hard to argue with.

 

[Sens Rule]

Bourque was better. Having seen him, and playoff Bourque for almost his entire career. Bourque is just a more dynamic player. Lidstrom is the best defender possibly ever (never saw Harvey!) but Bourque was so much more. The entire offence of the Bruins ran through Bourque. He was EVERYTHING! Lidstrom gets lots of PP points and controls the Wings end. Bourque was the best player on the ice for either team in both zones for almost all his career, in most every game. He brought a limited Bruins to the finals a couple of times. Playoff Bourque was astounding. I know Lidstrom has more cups but Bourque was a better playoff performer.

Bourque was the Yzerman AND the Lidstrom of his team. You don't notice Lidstrom that much. And that is fine. You didn't notice Bourque's defence that much either.. but you sure noticed his offence. Bourque is a lot better than Lidstrom. He was Paul Coffey AND Rod Langway.... at the same time.

The 80's were different, there were better defencemen, 2 way stars. EVERYONE picks Bourque EASILY over all the others. Niedermeyer, Chara... can't hold a candle to peak Chelios or MacInnis... And Bourque was better than everyone else. Chelios at his very best beat Bourque for Norris's... but it was a coin flip really.

People seem to forget how dynamic Bourque was. He played 30 minutes a night and absolutely dictated everything the Bruins did. Lidstrom is overshadowed by Yzerman, Fedorov, Coffey, Zetterberg, Datsyuk. Bourque would have been overshadowed by none of those players. Peak Neely was amazing... he was a beast. And it was still Bourque on the Bruins.

For his entire career, except Gretzky and Mario.. Bourque was probably the best player in the world. I don't think it was Messier, or Yzerman, or even Jagr, Roy or Hasek. It was Bourque. For the bulk of his career, the only better players were not even mere humans... but Mario and Gretzky. There is no way Lidstrom is or was that kind of player. Crosby or Jagr or Ovechkin or Mario, Sakic... Lidstrom can't be in an argument that his peak was close to them. Bourque... his peak... which was very long! Was the best in the world or at least in the legitimate argument save 66 and 99.

If I had a playoff series to win, or One season or an entire career... I choose Bourque easily. Easily!!!! Lidstrom is great for being consistently a tremendous defender and a tremendous PP player. For 15 years. Bourque for 15 years was that and much more.

I don't think Lidstrom's peak was better than Coffey's or MacInnis's or Pronger's, or Chelio's.. but it lasted a long, long time. He is better than all of those D-Men all time. Bourque's peak was better than Lidstrom's and it lasted 15 years... or even arguably his entire career. Bourque is better than Lidstrom... and frankly it is not close.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I don't know why this is being brought up again. Anyone who seen them both play at any length votes for Bourque. It's over, Lidstrom is not better, get over it.

 

[danincanada]

The NHL in the second half (2000's) of Lidstrom's career was a better league than it was in Bourque's first half (1980's). I know most in this section have convinced themselves this isn't true but it should be common sense by now. As hockey grows and more people participate there is more money involved, therefore players train harder, develop their skills further, have to be more precise, stronger, faster, etc. Overall in the NHL the individual skills, team play and systems are more advanced now and the level of competition is higher than ever. I don't expect to convince you of this today but eventually you will all have to deal with this reality.

Take this fact and add to it that Lidstrom did win more than Bourque, both individually and as part of a team, and it's a no brainer. Lidstrom was also more durable, took less penalties, and that defensive game of his is something that simply can't be measured. It certainly got results though.

I wish I had Canada's most respected analyst Bob McKenzie on video when he shyly (he's Canadian afterall) admitted Lidstrom is better than Bourque was. Most unbiased former players and analysts who have been paying attention would agree. Bourque was a dominant force on the ice no question but Lidstrom had an extra flare to his game that made him really rise to the occasion in big games and be unbelievably consistent game in and game out during his prime. Maybe the word "perfect" is overblown but that's what comes to mind.

Rome wasn't built in a day but it's almost time to give up on this HOH section because you guys really don't get it. I realize it's fun discussing and debating the history of hockey but when comparing players across eras you have to realize the sport hasn't been static all this time. When people start pretending players in the past were better because they played on outdoor rinks more than I think it's time for me to stop posting here. How someone can hold onto that when we know the sport has grown in every way is mind boggling to me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree that the NHL has far more depth post-1995 and it's much harder to stand out.

But Bourque also has unique circumstances - his prime in the late 80s and early 90s was against the golden age of American defensemen - guys like Chelios and Leetch who were inspired by Bobby Orr and then the Miracle on Ice. While Lidstrom has certainly had more European competition than Bourque, the US just doesn't produce defensemen like that anymore.

How many more Norrises would Bourque have won without Langway, Leetch, or Chelios?

 

[toob]

gimmie Coffey over both

 

[Hardyvan123]

Please give a reason why your player is better and keep in mind that that it takes a great team with great players to win trophies including individual ones like the Norris.[/QUOTE

Actually the Norris is an individual trophy, your argument is better applied to SC's

I've seen them both play and Bourque was better. Much better. No brainer better.

Well it's not a no brainer, I can see the argument for either guy but to call it a no brainer isn't very productive.

Either guy over Al Iafrate is a no brainer.

Bourque had both the higher peak and greater longetivity. So... Bourque.

Maybe the peak thing but longevity I dunno Lidstrom was an excellent player at age 20 in Sweden and is still going strong so in the end the longevity will turn out to be a wash IMO.

All-Star selections:

Bourque - 13 first team, 6 second team, 19 total

Lidstrom - 10 1st, 2 2nd, 12 total

To be fair if we want to count things we should also count Norris trophies and Stanely Cups and even then we need to look very carefully at everything as the counting game is just a starting point for discussion.

At his best Bourque was better. He was also one of the top 4 d-man for pretty much his entire career. Lidstrom, while great, only has post-35 edge on Bourque. Ages 20-35, Bourque has a big edge, and that's 75% of his career.

So begrudgingly, I have to choose Bourque, despite being a bigger Lidstrom fan.

Lidstrom is better after 30 but who is counting we need to look at entire career's and not just segments here and there, we can compare different segments but it must on a fair playing field.

I'm not accusing you of doing this but often people take a "My big Daddy beats your little brother approach" when making comps. Of course everyone has a bias or opinion in these matters.

When this topic comes up, there are two posters who respond to it. The first will be the one who was old enough to watch Bourque. The second is the one who wasn't. The former picks Bourque all the time. The latter, sometimes, picks Lidstrom.

The influx of talented defensemen in the 1980s and early to mid 1990s was astounding and in the mold of the ones in the 1970s. There was much better competition for the Norris when you are competing with Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, MacInnis, Stevens, etc. Lidstrom had those guys at the tail end of their careers and defensemen a notch below such as Blake, Niedermayer post 2003, Pronger when healthy and Chara 2004 and up. The second group is much weaker than the first one.

So from a stats level Bourque wins, from a level where you compare him to his peers he wins, and even the eye test shows that Bourque was more often the central focus of his team, sometimes even the offensive catalyst. I don't think Lidstrom ever had to be relied on as much as Bourque did. People talk about Lidstrom's longevity, which is nice, but Bourque was in the NHL just as long and for just as old, not to mention finishing 2nd in Norris voting his last NHL season.

Some people who have watched both players pick Lidstrom.

The competition argument gets overblown here a bit as Bourque played 10 years before Lidstrom who played against the best forwards in the world while Bouque played against mostly Canadian players in the 80's with the trickle from Europe and the US colleges gaining speed in the 80's it wasn't full blown like it was for Lidstrom's entire career.

I'm sure it is Bourque.

Norris counting is one thing, but all-star team counting is even more important.

It might be but people will view it differently, kinda like peak and prime.

I know this is going to come as a shock but I'm taking Bourque.

He played at a higher overall level and for longer.

Man the world really is going to end in 2012 now isn't it?

 

[Hobnobs]

This whole competition argument is played out. Bourque never won against the best competition either. Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Park had to slow down or retire first.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Man the world really is going to end in 2012 now isn't it?

Obviously you haven't been watching Lidstrom lately. He looks tired out there.
He had a good start, garnering 17 points in his first 23 games but has since only had 6 points in his last 17.
He is still playing solid defense but it doesn't look effortless any more and he's losing more battles than he ever has before. Then, when it comes time to go on offense, he doesn't seem to have much in the tank for it.

He will be retiring after this season, no doubt about it and if he wins the Norris this year, it will be the biggest joke in the history of the game.