Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Rhiessan71]

I think oates should get some credit for bourque's offensive numbers in the mid 90's, it seems like bourque's offense went downhill as soon as oates was traded. Im not saying this to insult bourque or anything, but i find it odd that his best ppg was in 1994, the year of the oates-neely duo. While lidstrom's best offensive years are not necessarily the years detriot players put up thier big numbers.

Because 1.26PpG is so much more than the 1.24 that he had in 3 other previous seasons without Oates?

Whether or not Detroit's players were putting up their biggest numbers is irrelevant, it's the fact that there were always a lot of Detroit players putting up good numbers in general.
It was rare for Lidstrom to even crack the top 4 on his own team.
With Bourque, it was rare for him to even be below #2.
Lead his team in scoring 5 times, 2nd 4 times, then a bunch of 3rd place finishes after that.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He's talking about longevity though. Bourque is playing FULL NHL seasons at 18, he's an elite d-man by 19. Lidstrom starts playing FULL NHL seasons by 21 and isn't elite till 27.
Lidstrom started 3 years later and looks like he's going to finish 1 year later.
Is there another way to read that?
Bourque played his 22nd season at 40, Lidstrom, his 21rst at 41.




Hold on there, it's not just about the R-on numbers here. It's about how the R-on are in relation to the R-off.
It's not about whether both players are 1.4 or 1.3, it's about how Bourque is 1.40 to his teams .97 compared to Lidstrom's 1.4 to his teams 1.2.
That's where the gap is. Look at the numbers agai nwith that in mind and my reading of them makes a hell of a lot more sense.
You're right though, my use of "marginally" better for Lidstrom's last 2 years to Bourque's last 4 years was wrong although you have to admit, those B's teams that make up 3/4's of that data were absolutely brutal.
I'd like to see just Bourque's '01 season if possible.

For the rest of it though, look at the comparison between the two of them for the previous years. Seriously, it's not even close. Bourque made the Bruins a much better team. Lidstrom only made the Wing's better and sometimes only marginally. (There I used "marginally) correctly this time )

In fact, why don't we do the same thing for Lidstrom that we did for Orr when OP first posted all that data.
We looked at other players from his team to see where they ended up and quickly discovered that not only are they not close, almost every one of them had actually had R-on numbers that were lower than their R-off.

Lets look at Fedorov...hmmm..interesting, he comes back with a 1.35 - 1.09.
Damn, looks like Detroit was an even worse team when Fedorov wasn't on the ice than when Lidstrom wasn't.
Interesting no?
Granted, those numbers are Fedorov's career and I don't know how much that skews them. He had a best 10 seasons list in there, I'll see if I can find it and if Feds is on it.




Refer back to my baseball HoF post.

Ah the Lidstrom team argument - as always ignoring that he is the only constant on the Red Wings throughout his career.

And as usual we apply the Lidstrom-double standard: so we take credit away from Lidstrom for what people did when he wasn't even on the ice and similarly give extra to Bourque for standing out against weak counterparts.

Listen, I already said up thread I would probably pick Bourque over Lidstrom if I had to pick one, but I think it is a lot closer than all these weak arguments you guys are throwing out there trying to make stick would have anyone believe.

 

[canucks4ever]

Because 1.26PpG is so much more than the 1.24 that he had in 3 other previous seasons without Oates?

Whether or not Detroit's players were putting up their biggest numbers is irrelevant, it's the fact that there were always a lot of Detroit players putting up good numbers in general.
It was rare for Lidstrom to even crack the top 4 on his own team.
With Bourque, it was rare for him to even be below #2.
Lead his team in scoring 5 times, 2nd 4 times, then a bunch of 3rd place finishes after that.

Yeah those other seasons he was 24-30, not 33 and in 1996 he was a point per gamer at age 35. Give oates some credit here, he helped bourque's numbers quite a bit from 94-96, then when hes traded, boston tanks and bourque's offense drops, a coincidence? His highest ppg season is in his 15th year in the league, in a season where two of his teammates are both in the top 5 for ppg.

Bourque always had help in the 80's. Whether it was middleton, pederson, linseman or neely/janney, he wasnt this one man show that you are making him out to be.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think it is a pretty good indication of how much these numbers are affected by things outside the individual's play.

You mean like playing on a very good team your whole career can make you seem like a better player than you actually were?

Like say, get you some extra points offensively that you wouldn't have otherwise?

Saaaay like if defenseman A were playing with 4, 5 and even 6 of Yzerman, Fedorov, Hull, Shanahan, Robitaile, Datsyuk, Coffey, Murphy, Zetterberg and Larionov in any given year for 15 years.
Compared to say defensman B playing with only any 2 of Oates, Neely, Janney, Thornton, Alison in any given year over 15 years.

Wouldn't you completely and overwhelmingly figure that defenseman A should bury D-man B?

Yet, not only does that not happen but D-man B actually beats D-man A by a fair margin.

Interesting, so tell me again how Lidstrom's offense is only slightly behind Bourque's?

 

[overpass]

I think it is a pretty good indication of how much these numbers are affected by things outside the individual's play.

I agree.

Although it's not just the advanced stats that show Bourque as better in Colorado. Traditional stats and even the eye test do as well.

Hockey's a team game, and it's hard to isolate individual contributions.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yeah those other seasons he was 24-30, not 33 and in 1996 he was a point per gamer at age 35. Give oates some credit here, he helped bourque's numbers quite a bit from 94-96, then when hes traded, boston tanks and bourque's offense drops, a coincidence? His highest ppg season is in his 15th year in the league, in a season where two of his teammates are both in the top 5 for ppg.

Bourque always had help in the 80's. Whether it was middleton, pederson, linseman or neely/janney, he wasnt this one man show that you are making him out to be.

Yeah, you're right he wasn't always a 1 man show, sometimes he was part of a 2 or 3 man show, sometimes.
Compared to Lidstrom being part of a 4, 5, 6 or even 7 man show for the majority of his career in Detroit?

Any way you cut it, Bourque did more offensively with a hell of a lot less and that is an actual fact.

 

[canucks4ever]

Yeah, you're right he wasn't always a 1 man show, sometimes he was part of a 2 or 3 man show, sometimes.
Compared to Lidstrom being part of a 4, 5, 6 or even 7 man show for the majority of his career in Detroit?

Im sorry but who in detriot was putting up big numbers when lidstrom was actually in his prime from 97-2003? In the mid 80's pederson and middleton were regularly scoring 90-115 points. In 1993 and 1994 oates put up back to back freak seasons. The best offensive season for lidstrom's prime was federov's 83 point season in 2003 and datsyuk/zetterberg combo in 2008.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Im sorry but who in detriot was putting up big numbers when lidstrom was actually in his prime from 97-2003? In the mid 80's pederson and middleton were regularly scoring 90-115 points. In 1993 and 1994 oates put up back to back freak seasons. The best offensive season for lidstrom's prime was federov's 83 point season in 2003 and datsyuk/zetterberg combo in 2008.

You should prolly go back and look at the gap between 1rst and 8th in scoring on those Detroit teams, then go look at the same gap on Bourque's Boston teams before you go any further with this.

Not to mention (and this is going to be fun because I get to use your own logic against you) adjusted Middleton's '83/84 season is supposedly only worth 83 points.

Are you honestly trying to argue that Bourque had as much offensive support as Lidstrom over the years...just don't man, seriously.
That's like walking into high school as a freshman with a "Kick Me" T-shirt on.
All you end up with at the end of the day is a sore ass

 

[BraveCanadian]

I agree.

Although it's not just the advanced stats that show Bourque as better in Colorado. Traditional stats and even the eye test do as well.

Hockey's a team game, and it's hard to isolate individual contributions.

Yeah it is a really tough thing to do.

How much was Bourque resurgent because he had a last legitimate chance at a Cup and he bore down on it vs. he played about the same but looked better because he had so much more help?

That is one of the things that makes hockey so interesting. No one has figured it out so there is still some mystery/human element to it.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yeah, you're right he wasn't always a 1 man show, sometimes he was part of a 2 or 3 man show, sometimes.
Compared to Lidstrom being part of a 4, 5, 6 or even 7 man show for the majority of his career in Detroit?

Any way you cut it, Bourque did more offensively with a hell of a lot less and that is an actual fact.

Both players had/have similar skating, passing and shooting abilities, as well as similar quarterbacking abilities. It would have been interesting to see them shoved into opposite roles. We only saw Bourque in that more "supporting offense" role on a similarly skilled team for a short time at the end of his career when he was not what he once was. Granted his +/- shot through the roof compared to his last 5 years in Boston.

Bourque had to do a lot more offensively. As another pointed out, He was probably the best at calculated gambles from the blueline ever. It was a situation he really had to jump into and thrive in. He was much shiftier with the puck than Lidstrom from center ice in though. Most teams focused directly on shutting down Bourque above all because (Can"t remember which Oiler said this about the finals)"If we can force him to pass the puck, we are better off with anyone else carrying it than him"

Lidstrom has always played a more "supporting offense" role that he slowly perfected over the years(Not only that, but his team adapted to that style as well), as a contrast to Bourque's more necessary "creating offense". A role made easier for Lidstrom by the quality of linemates he had up front and as defensive partners. In a supporting offense role, your transition game is key. Both Bourque and Lidstrom were outstanding in this area of retrieving and making the proper pass with the puck to jumpstart offense in the other direction.

The large difference being the people they were passing the puck to. But superstars find a way to score no matter what by playing to the best of their abilities in situations. Lidstrom played in a perfect situation for his skills on a team built around his transition game, while Bourque more than shined by being the go to guy on a far less star studded squad.

 

[Stonefly]

Both players had/have similar skating, passing and shooting abilities, as well as similar quarterbacking abilities. It would have been interesting to see them shoved into opposite roles. We only saw Bourque in that more "supporting offense" role on a similarly skilled team for a short time at the end of his career when he was not what he once was. Granted his +/- shot through the roof compared to his last 5 years in Boston.

Bourque had to do a lot more offensively. As another pointed out, He was probably the best at calculated gambles from the blueline ever. It was a situation he really had to jump into and thrive in. He was much shiftier with the puck than Lidstrom from center ice in though. Most teams focused directly on shutting down Bourque above all because (Can"t remember which Oiler said this about the finals)"If we can force him to pass the puck, we are better off with anyone else carrying it than him"

Lidstrom has always played a more "supporting offense" role that he slowly perfected over the years(Not only that, but his team adapted to that style as well), as a contrast to Bourque's more necessary "creating offense". A role made easier for Lidstrom by the quality of linemates he had up front and as defensive partners. In a supporting offense role, your transition game is key. Both Bourque and Lidstrom were outstanding in this area of retrieving and making the proper pass with the puck to jumpstart offense in the other direction.

The large difference being the people they were passing the puck to. But superstars find a way to score no matter what by playing to the best of their abilities in situations. Lidstrom played in a perfect situation for his skills on a team built around his transition game, while Bourque more than shined by being the go to guy on a far less star studded squad.

Now we're getting somewhere. People going on about their offence being relatively similar because their point totals say so is nonsense. Creating offence and supporting offence are two entirely different things.
Playing hot potato with the puck will only result in offence if you have talented players to pass to. Bourque didn't have that option the majority of his career with Boston. But he had the ability to create offence in any system or team design. He was brilliant with lead passes but could also carry the puck to force offence.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Both players had/have similar skating, passing and shooting abilities, as well as similar quarterbacking abilities. It would have been interesting to see them shoved into opposite roles. We only saw Bourque in that more "supporting offense" role on a similarly skilled team for a short time at the end of his career when he was not what he once was. Granted his +/- shot through the roof compared to his last 5 years in Boston.

Bourque had to do a lot more offensively. As another pointed out, He was probably the best at calculated gambles from the blueline ever. It was a situation he really had to jump into and thrive in. He was much shiftier with the puck than Lidstrom from center ice in though. Most teams focused directly on shutting down Bourque above all because (Can"t remember which Oiler said this about the finals)"If we can force him to pass the puck, we are better off with anyone else carrying it than him"

Lidstrom has always played a more "supporting offense" role that he slowly perfected over the years(Not only that, but his team adapted to that style as well), as a contrast to Bourque's more necessary "creating offense". A role made easier for Lidstrom by the quality of linemates he had up front and as defensive partners. In a supporting offense role, your transition game is key. Both Bourque and Lidstrom were outstanding in this area of retrieving and making the proper pass with the puck to jumpstart offense in the other direction.

The large difference being the people they were passing the puck to. But superstars find a way to score no matter what by playing to the best of their abilities in situations. Lidstrom played in a perfect situation for his skills on a team built around his transition game, while Bourque more than shined by being the go to guy on a far less star studded squad.

He also had to do a lot more defensively.

 

[Dark Shadows]

He also had to do a lot more defensively.

Agreed, as Detroit was a hotbed of Selke caliber forwards and much better defensive partners. The conversation however seemed to be focusing on offense when I made that observation

 

[RabbinsDuck]

He also had to do a lot more defensively.

Maybe...

Lidstrom has had better two-way forwards to help out, but Bourque usually had more defensive Dmen partnered with him - Ray didn't have quite the same responsibility to always be first back as Nick has.

 

[Mc5RingsAndABeer]

Lidstrom, because he played most of his games during my generation.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Maybe...

Lidstrom has had better two-way forwards to help out, but Bourque usually had more defensive Dmen partnered with him - Ray didn't have quite the same responsibility to always be first back as Nick has.

What Bourque had was inexperienced kids and stiffs for partners for most of his career.

 

[Hobnobs]

All I see in this thread right now is that Bouque scored all of Bruins goals and took them as far as he could every year while Lidström simply relied on better teammates.

People here seem to forget how outstanding players like Janney, Neely, Linseman, Middleton and Kasper were during the '88 playoffs for example.

How clutch Neely, Poulin, Janney and Propp were in the '90 playoffs.

 

[Rhiessan71]

All I see in this thread right now is that Bouque scored all of Bruins goals and took them as far as he could every year while Lidström simply relied on better teammates.

People here seem to forget how outstanding players like Janney, Neely, Linseman, Middleton and Kasper were during the '88 playoffs for example.

How clutch Neely, Poulin, Janney and Propp were in the '90 playoffs.

Nobody is forgetting anything. It shows that when Bourque had some support (still no where close to the support Lidstrom enjoyed on average per season) that his teams could take a shot.

 

[tarheelhockey]

All I see in this thread right now is that Bouque scored all of Bruins goals and took them as far as he could every year while Lidström simply relied on better teammates.

There's a difference between "relied on better teammates" and "had better teammates". I think most people are arguing the latter.

People here seem to forget how outstanding players like Janney, Neely, Linseman, Middleton and Kasper were during the '88 playoffs for example.

How clutch Neely, Poulin, Janney and Propp were in the '90 playoffs.

Neely, Janney, Liseman, Middleton, Poulin, Kasper, Propp

Yzerman, Fedorov, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Chelios, Murphy

I hope it's not going to take 3 pages of advance stats to figure out which of these groups was better positioned to win in the postseason.

 

[quoipourquoi]

There's a difference between "relied on better teammates" and "had better teammates". I think most people are arguing the latter.



Neely, Janney, Liseman, Middleton, Poulin, Kasper, Propp

Yzerman, Fedorov, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Chelios, Murphy

I hope it's not going to take 3 pages of advance stats to figure out which of these groups was better positioned to win in the postseason.

And not to throw Terry O'Reilly, Mike Milbury, and Rick Bowness under the bus, but Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock they were not.

 

[Hobnobs]

There's a difference between "relied on better teammates" and "had better teammates". I think most people are arguing the latter.



Neely, Janney, Liseman, Middleton, Poulin, Kasper, Propp

Yzerman, Fedorov, Zetterberg, Shanahan, Chelios, Murphy

I hope it's not going to take 3 pages of advance stats to figure out which of these groups was better positioned to win in the postseason.

I would argue that Orr and Potvin had better teammates too. So now Bourque is the best defenseman all-time. Unless we look a defensemen who've won the cup with even weaker support cast like Chara, Boyle and Niedermeyer.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would argue that Orr and Potvin had better teammates too. So now Bourque is the best defenseman all-time. Unless we look a defensemen who've won the cup with even weaker support cast like Chara, Boyle and Niedermeyer.

Instead of creating a giant strawman, why not just make your point clearly?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I would argue that Orr and Potvin had better teammates too. So now Bourque is the best defenseman all-time. Unless we look a defensemen who've won the cup with even weaker support cast like Chara, Boyle and Niedermeyer.

You may be on to something there.

 

[Hobnobs]

Instead of creating a giant strawman, why not just make your point clearly?

Instead of saying who had the better teammates maybe you could get to the point and tell me how having better teammates makes player X a lesser player because player Y didnt.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Instead of saying who had the better teammates maybe you could get to the point and tell me how having better teammates makes player X a lesser player because player Y didnt.

I think I already explained that above. I never said it made player X a lesser player. Merely that it allowed player X to play a more conservative supporting offense game as opposed to being relied on to create offense. But since we are talking about it, It certainly did not hurt to have all those Selke caliber forwards either