Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[overpass]

The explanation for that should be clear to everyone at this point: Lidstrom's most effective in a puck-possession game. It's more important for his partner to be capable of handling the puck cleanly than for him to be a defensive standout. Otherwise Lidstrom's effectiveness in the possession game is compromised, as opponents can simply funnel the play away from him without consequence.

As a result, Lidstrom has never been vulnerable to the strategy Boston's playoff opponents used against Ray Bourque, where they would dump the puck into Bourque's corner and forecheck him hard, forcing him to pass the puck. Lidstrom could simply pass the puck to Coffey/Murphy/Olausson/Schneider/Rafalski/White, who were/are very capable at moving the puck up the ice.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Right. Offensively, Bourque has a clear edge in the regular season and is at least equal in the playoffs (depending on how you consider adjusted stats' treatment of the 80s).

Traditional adjusted stats based on overall league scoring probably overrate 80s defensemen a little bit because defensemen then scored a higher percentage of league offense than they do now. 80s 1st line forwards are the ones underrated by adjusted stats

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The explanation for that should be clear to everyone at this point: Lidstrom's most effective in a puck-possession game. It's more important for his partner to be capable of handling the pick cleanly than for him to be a defensive standout.

I have always viewed it as Lidstrom is so good defensively that Detroit has had the luxury of pairing a risk-taker with him.

Even in today's game the top defensemen in the league are usually paired with a defense-first partner: Chara, Weber, Keith...

That Lidstrom has done so well offensively, despite always having the responsibility of being the first one back in his own zone, is quite remarkable.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque didnt play the whole series vs the wings and his two assists isnt exactly what I would call an edge vs lidströms 2 assists. Avs didnt win vs Detroit because of Bourque and Detroit didnt lose because of Lidström.

You talk like Oilers, Isles and Pens were invincible and the only teams to beat the Bruins. How about the '89 season? '93? '94? '85?

Well, first off, Bourque's first 13 years covers 80-92 so 93 and 94 are irrelevant to my point and I think you meant 86 not 85.
86 was when Steve Smith scored on his own net, sending the Flames to the finals vs a rookie Patty Roy.
89 was once again a Habs/Flames final. Of course this was the season that Gretzky was traded to the Kings.

As far as invincible...yeah for the most part, they pretty much were. 11 out of 13 years or do you not know the meaning of the word Dynasty?

Either way, the odds were stacked against Bourque, they were stacked in favour of Lidstrom.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

How was Robinson more complete than Lidstrom? Lidstrom was/is much better offensively than Robinson ever was.

How was Robinson more complete? Robinson could go coast-to-coast with the puck. His rushes up the ice weren't Bobby Orr or Paul Coffey, but he was damn good at it.

Also, he threw a monster hip check. Tremendous timing. And he could also fight if you dared. Robinson was the total package.

You could argue Lidstrom was better, and I'd probably agree. But more complete than Larry Robinson? How?

 

[overpass]

Traditional adjusted stats based on overall league scoring probably overrate 80s defensemen a little bit because defensemen then scored a higher percentage of league offense than they do now. 80s 1st line forwards are the ones underrated by adjusted stats

Assuming that the proportions of offensive talent among NHL defencemen and NHL forwards have been constant.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Assuming that the proportions of offensive talent among NHL defencemen and NHL forwards have been constant.

True. I don't think you can say that 80s defensemen are underrated by adjusted stats though, like you can with first line forwards. There seems to be a line of thought that adjusted stats may underrate everyone from the 80s, which I disagree with - they underrate one class of players (first line forwards), which mathematically means they have to overrate another class.

How was Robinson more complete? Robinson could go coast-to-coast with the puck. His rushes up the ice weren't Bobby Orr or Paul Coffey, but he was damn good at it.

Also, he threw a monster hip check. Tremendous timing. And he could also fight if you dared. Robinson was the total package.

You could argue Lidstrom was better, and I'd probably agree. But more complete than Larry Robinson? How?

Lidstrom put up much better offensive numbers than Robinson, and appears to have been much more effective at running a PP. (Lapointe, not Robinson, ran the Montreal PP).

 

[tarheelhockey]

Traditional adjusted stats based on overall league scoring probably overrate 80s defensemen a little bit because defensemen then scored a higher percentage of league offense than they do now. 80s 1st line forwards are the ones underrated by adjusted stats

Assuming that the proportions of offensive talent among NHL defencemen and NHL forwards have been constant.

Also, as has been said here from time to time, saying 80s defensemen are offensively overrated requires a caveat that 90s/00s defensemen are therefore defensively overrated.

I have always viewed it as Lidstrom is so good defensively that Detroit has had the luxury of pairing a risk-taker with him.

That's a fair observation as well. You could flip it upside-down and say that guys like Coffey and Green are so good offensively that their teams have the luxury of pairing them with a defense-only partner.

I guess the larger point in play is that, from both a management and coaching point of view, Detroit always had their act together when handling Lidstrom. From the day they first scouted him, up until the present, they have always had a clear plan for getting the most out of him they possibly could. The team of Devellano/Holland/Bowman and then eventually Babcock have been the class of the league for a long time, for a reason.

It's not a knock on Lidstrom that he maximized his career with the help of his organization. It's more of a slap at Jeremy Jacobs, Harry Sinden and their cast of clowns behind the bench. I guess the sympathy for Bourque faded when he finally won the Cup, but there was a good long while when his continued presence in that organization seemed downright tragic.

 

[Rhiessan71]

All this lengthy discussion about Lidstrom's partners, a lot of good names popping up, most of them HoFers. Coffey, Murphy, Schneider, Chelios, Rafalski, that's a hell of a list.

Lets go through Bourque's partners over the years that match up to Lidstrom's....



hmmmm....



ummmmm....




ahhhhh....




....oh yeah, he had Blake for 13 total regular season games, 21 playoff games and before someone says Park, they didn't even play together at even strength and it was only for 3 1/2 years.
After that, the next closest is Glen Wesley for 7 years and no one is going to confuse Wesley with anyone on Lidstrom's list.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All this lengthy discussion about Lidstrom's partners, a lot of good names popping up, most of them HoFers. Coffey, Murphy, Schneider, Chelios, Rafalski, that's a hell of a list.

Lets go through Bourque's partners over the years that match up to Lidstrom's....



hmmmm....



ummmmm....




ahhhhh....




....oh yeah, he had Blake for 13 total regular season games, 21 playoff games and before someone says Park, they didn't even play together at even strength and it was only for 3 1/2 years.
After that, the next closest is Glen Wesley for 7 years and no one is going to confuse Wesley with anyone on Lidstrom's list.

Lidstrom only played with Chris Chelios on the penalty kill.

Bourque was partnered with Adam Foote his entire time in Colorado, I think.

For some reason, I remember Bourque being partnered with Don Sweeney a lot.

 

[Rhiessan71]

True. I don't think you can say that 80s defensemen are underrated by adjusted stats though, like you can with first line forwards. There seems to be a line of thought that adjusted stats may underrate everyone from the 80s, which I disagree with - they underrate one class of players (first line forwards), which mathematically means they have to overrate another class.

Exactly, any system that has Gretzky losing 25 goals while Chris Nilan only loses 1 is flawed some where.
Like any normalizing mechanic, the further you get away from the average, the more inaccurate it gets.
That's why they are a TOOL, not a final answer like so many like present them as especially when dealing with outliers, which of course is 99% of what we deal with on this board heh.

 

[overpass]

All this lengthy discussion about Lidstrom's partners, a lot of good names popping up, most of them HoFers. Coffey, Murphy, Schneider, Chelios, Rafalski, that's a hell of a list.

Lets go through Bourque's partners over the years that match up to Lidstrom's....



hmmmm....



ummmmm....




ahhhhh....




....oh yeah, he had Blake for 13 total regular season games, 21 playoff games and before someone says Park, they didn't even play together at even strength and it was only for 3 1/2 years.
After that, the next closest is Glen Wesley for 7 years and no one is going to confuse Wesley with anyone on Lidstrom's list.

Brad Park.

Some other names, although I wouldn't say they match up to Park or the list of Lidstrom's partners.

Dick Redmond
Mike O'Connell
John Blum
Mike Milbury
Jim Wiemer
Glen Wesley
Don Sweeney
Kyle McLaren
Hal Gill
Adam Foote

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Right. Boston sure became dysfunctional by the late 90s, but Bourque sure walked into a good situation as a young player. Boston was one of the best teams in the late 70s and had a recent history of developing great defensemen. And he got to be mentored by Brad Park.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom only played with Chris Chelios on the penalty kill.

Bourque was partnered with Adam Foote his entire time in Colorado, I think.

For some reason, I remember Bourque being partnered with Don Sweeney a lot.

So are you honestly saying that Sweeney, Galley and Foote are in the same class as Coffey, Murphy, Schneider and Rafalski? Foote, you could make a case for sure but that's a total of 1 1/4 seasons out of 22 soooo...

D partners just like team strength between the two is not remotely close.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So are you honestly saying that Sweeney, Galley and Foote are in the same class as Coffey, Murphy, Schneider and Rafalski? Foote, you could make a case for sure but that's a total of 1 1/4 seasons out of 22 soooo...

D partners just like team strength between the two is not remotely close.

Nope, I'm just correcting some of your errors that all seem to exaggerate the difference. Forgot about Brad Park though in Bourque's formative years.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Nope, I'm just correcting some of your errors that all seem to exaggerate the difference. Forgot about Brad Park though in Bourque's formative years.

Ummm...I said Park, look again.
Somehow both you and OP missed it


And errors? What errors?
I was looking for partners that belong in the same breath as what Lidstrom had most of his career, there are no errors.
There's no exaggeration either, that really is just how it is.

 

[overpass]

Bourque and Park played together at least some of the time at EV.

Here are the defencemen with whom Bourque collaborated on points at even strength, along with the frequency. (Meaning that they each got a point on the same goal.)

1979-80
Brad Park 3
Dick Redmond 2

1980-81
Brad McCrimmon 2
Dick Redmond 2
Mike Milbury 1

1981-82
Brad Park 3
Mike O'Connell 2
Brad McCrimmon 1
Larry Melnyk 1

1982-83
Brad Park 4
Mike O'Connell 2
Randy Hillier 2
Gord Kluzak 1
Mike Milbury 1

1979-80 to 1982-83
Brad Park 10
Dick Redmond 4
Mike O'Connell 4
Brad McCrimmon 3
Randy Hillier 2
Mike Milbury 2
Larry Melnyk 1
Gord Kluzak 1
Total 27


As a talented offensive defenceman, Park was probably more likely to work together with Bourque on scoring a goal than the others. Even after taking that into consideration, it looks like Bourque and Park spent a fair amount of time together, enough to be worth mentioning.

Here are the comparable numbers for Lidstrom from 1993-94 to 1995-96 (I don't have the data for his first two seasons.)

1993-94
Paul Coffey 8
Mark Howe 2
Vladimir Konstantinov 2
Steve Chiasson 1

1994-95
Paul Coffey 2
Vladimir Konstantinov 1
Jason York 1

1995-96
Paul Coffey 5
Mike Ramsey 2
Jamie Pushor 1
Marc Bergevin 1

1993-94 to 1995-96
Paul Coffey 15
Vladimir Konstantinov 3
Mark Howe 2
Mike Ramsey 2
Steve Chiasson 1
Jason York 1
Jamie Pushor 1
Marc Bergevin 1
Total 26

 

[shadow1]

Lidstrom only played with Chris Chelios on the penalty kill.

Bourque was partnered with Adam Foote his entire time in Colorado, I think.

For some reason, I remember Bourque being partnered with Don Sweeney a lot.

He was. Rob Blake played with Martin Skoula.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Lidstrom put up much better offensive numbers than Robinson, and appears to have been much more effective at running a PP. (Lapointe, not Robinson, ran the Montreal PP).

OK. And for THAT he's more complete?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

OK. And for THAT he's more complete?

First off, I didn't say Lidstrom was more complete. I was disagreeing with your assertion that Robinson was more complete.

Second off, running the powerplay is part of what makes a defenseman "complete" in my opinion.

You basically have Robinson's superior physical play vs. Lidstrom's superior ability to run the offense from the point.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Lidstrom only played with Chris Chelios on the penalty kill.

Bourque was partnered with Adam Foote his entire time in Colorado, I think.

For some reason, I remember Bourque being partnered with Don Sweeney a lot.

Also, Lidstrom was well-protected in Detroit, especially in his later years. For example, Lidstrom's partner is always the puck-retriever when the puck is near the boards, even if Lidstrom is in better position to go after it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

One alternative to adjusted stats is to go the 'relative to his peers' route.

During Bourque's time in the league:

Name | YR | YR | GP | G | A | P | PPG Raymond Bourque | 1980 | 2001 | 1612 | 410 | 1169 | 1579 | 0.98
Paul Coffey | 1981 | 2001 | 1409 | 396 | 1135 | 1531 | 1.09
Larry Murphy | 1981 | 2001 | 1615 | 287 | 929 | 1216 | 0.75
Phil Housley | 1983 | 2001 | 1357 | 317 | 847 | 1164 | 0.86
Al MacInnis | 1982 | 2001 | 1262 | 313 | 845 | 1158 | 0.92

The players above were all born within about 3 years of each other, making them a remarkably clean generational cohort. Bourque was a large step above them offensively except for Coffey, whose characteristics we all know well.

Playoff scoring during the same period:

Name | YR | YR | GP | G | A | P | PPG Paul Coffey | 1981 | 1999 | 194 | 59 | 137 | 196 | 1.01
Raymond Bourque | 1980 | 2001 | 214 | 41 | 139 | 180 | 0.84
Al MacInnis | 1984 | 2001 | 164 | 39 | 113 | 152 | 0.93
Larry Murphy | 1981 | 2001 | 215 | 37 | 115 | 152 | 0.71
Chris Chelios | 1984 | 2001 | 187 | 29 | 93 | 122 | 0.65

Bourque's PPG is still behind Coffey, by a slightly larger margin, and falls behind MacInnis. His PPG a large step every other defenseman besides Brian Leetch, who scored only half as many actual points during this timeframe and would be #9 if the chart went that far down.



During Lidstrom's time in the league:

Name | YR | YR | GP | G | A | P | PPG Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2012 | 1536 | 261 | 870 | 1131 | 0.74
Brian Leetch | 1992 | 2006 | 968 | 195 | 604 | 799 | 0.83
Sergei Zubov | 1993 | 2009 | 1068 | 152 | 619 | 771 | 0.72
Scott Niedermayer | 1992 | 2010 | 1263 | 172 | 568 | 740 | 0.59
Sergei Gonchar |1995 | 2012 | 1095 | 211 | 523 | 734 | 0.67

Brian Leetch and Sergei Zubov are to Lidstrom as Coffey is to Bourque. Clear-cut over him in PPG, though one could make an argument against their defense. Leetch has a better case than Zubov, though, because there was a period when he legitimately was THAT good at both ends of the ice.

Playoffs:

Player | YR | YR | GP | G | A | P | PPG Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2011 | 258 | 54 | 129 | 183 | 0.71
Chris Pronger | 1996 | 2011 | 173 | 26 | 95 | 121 | 0.70
Sergei Zubov | 1994 | 2008 | 164 | 24 | 93 | 117 | 0.71
Larry Murphy | 1991 | 2001 | 147 | 22 | 86 | 108 | 0.73
Brian Rafalski | 2000 | 2011 | 165 | 29 | 71 | 100 | 0.61

This is slightly frustrating because Lidstrom doesn't have that clean-cut group of generational peers, as evidenced by playing 50% more games than anyone else. I would have a hard time accepting Rafalski or Murphy at face value here, since they only played about half the timeframe. Pronger and Zubov appear to have legitimately been as high-scoring in the playoffs. With Pronger you could argue for a comparable if not better level of defense in certain seasons, though not all seasons. Zubov of course is the Coffey here.

Taken in combination with the adjusted stats, I'd say it seems about right to say Bourque was the better regular-season scorer by a clear margin, and the two were about equal in the playoffs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also, Lidstrom was well-protected in Detroit, especially in his later years. For example, Lidstrom's partner is always the puck-retriever when the puck is near the boards, even if Lidstrom is in better position to go after it.

I don't know if "well protected" is what I'd call that. Perhaps it's a sign that Lidstrom is the most trusted to defend the middle of the ice.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

During Lidstrom's time in the league:

Name | YR | YR | GP | G | A | P | PPG Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2012 | 1536 | 261 | 870 | 1131 | 0.74
Brian Leetch | 1992 | 2006 | 968 | 195 | 604 | 799 | 0.83
Sergei Zubov | 1993 | 2009 | 1068 | 152 | 619 | 771 | 0.72
Scott Niedermayer | 1992 | 2010 | 1263 | 172 | 568 | 740 | 0.59
Sergei Gonchar |1995 | 2012 | 1095 | 211 | 523 | 734 | 0.67

Brian Leetch and Sergei Zubov are to Lidstrom as Coffey is to Bourque. Clear-cut over him in PPG, though one could make an argument against their defense. Leetch has a better case than Zubov, though, because there was a period when he legitimately was THAT good at both ends of the ice.

1) Lidstrom's PPG is higher than Zubov's.
2) I don't think the comparison with Leetch works very well - Leetch peaked offensively before the dead puck era, while Lidstrom peaked during the dead puck era. So Leetch's raw PPG will be much higher. I do think Leetch was probably a bit better offensively than Lidstrom, but not as much as their raw PPG would show.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I don't know if "well protected" is what I'd call that. Perhaps it's a sign that Lidstrom is the most trusted to defend the middle of the ice.

I think it protected Lidstrom from the pressure of the forecheck, a defenseman's nightmare. A defenseman getting hammered night after night is a different defenseman.