Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[toob]

Anyway, putting speculation aside I think the point has been made regarding whether his numbers were inflated by the superstar, Craig Janney.

Agreed and leading his team in scoring multiple times is a very good case to differentiate Bourque from Lidstrom offensively.

I did notice that while there arent any standout performances by Bourque's teammates in 87 the team was quite deep in scoring. That is a similar situation to Lidstrom in that the Red Wings from the late 90s onward dont have a few guys really putting up huge numbers but the team is deep in scoring and one of the best offensive teams as a whole. I do agree with the view that Lids had his numbers boosted significantly due to playing in such a situation. Then again Lids was never able to lead the team in scoring...

Not having watched Bourque in those years i cant say if he was offensively involved a lot or not so much and the numbers are inflated by a good deep offensive team. The Hockey Scouting Report seems to suggest he had all the skills to carry an offense but then again Lidstrom (to a degree) does too: good skater, good puck control, hard accurate shot, playmaking vision. Lids didnt use it as much after Konstantinov's accident though playing a defense first game and still having good numbers due to his team situation. He started to make use of it more post lockout playing a more offensive game.

 

[danincanada]

Maybe...until I went through the box scores for the '02 playoffs and discover that while the 91/19/14 line is one that Scotty liked to use when behind.
That actual line was only together for regular shifts for about half of the Vancouver series, a game or two in the St Louis series, very little in the Av's series and about half of the finals against the Caines.

So again, the "all but a few games" statement is completely false.
In fact, Holmstrom spent more time with Fedorov and Shanahan than Yzerman did.

You DO NOT and CAN NOT end up with those kind of faceoff totals playing on the same line even half the time! It's impossible.

I don't know what you're looking at but you should have watched and remembered the games from that run. I did and do.

From Yzerman's own mouth at his HHOF ceremony:

"My knee had been bugging me right from training camp, and it was getting to a point where we kind of had to make a decision on whether I was going to continue playing or not," recalls Yzerman.

"I really didn't end up playing until the playoffs, and really, all I did was play the games. I didn't practice much and kind of got through the games. I couldn't move very well, but I really relied on my linemates [Brendan Shanahan and Sergei Fedorov] a lot."

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2009/06/23/sp-halloffame-inductions.html#panel0

Whenever Bowman could he had a first unit with Shanahan playing left wing, Yzerman playing right wing and Fedorov at centre. Remember this goal? It's game 6 with no score at even strength, and Bowman has his # 1 line out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NDsRgPT-Ag

Like I said before, those 3 were a unit for the most part in that '02 run, other than when Bowman rested Datsyuk and Larionov and Jason Williams subbed. Then he usually took Fedorov off that line to centre another.

The other factors for the faceoff numbers are that Yzerman and Fedorov were split up on the PK and they probably took all those faceoffs while split. Also, I seem to remember Fedorov playing D on the PP a lot so Yzerman probably took a lot of those faceoffs. Datsyuk was a rookie so Bowman didn't want him taking lots of faceoffs and Larionov was old and small. Yzerman, Fedorov and Draper were his best so he got them out there for faceoffs whenever possible, like any great coach would do.

 

[Hobnobs]

Agreed and leading his team in scoring multiple times is a very good case to differentiate Bourque from Lidstrom offensively.

I did notice that while there arent any standout performances by Bourque's teammates in 87 the team was quite deep in scoring. That is a similar situation to Lidstrom in that the Red Wings from the late 90s onward dont have a few guys really putting up huge numbers but the team is deep in scoring and one of the best offensive teams as a whole. I do agree with the view that Lids had his numbers boosted significantly due to playing in such a situation. Then again Lids was never able to lead the team in scoring...

Not having watched Bourque in those years i cant say if he was offensively involved a lot or not so much and the numbers are inflated by a good deep offensive team. The Hockey Scouting Report seems to suggest he had all the skills to carry an offense but then again Lidstrom (to a degree) does too: good skater, good puck control, hard accurate shot, playmaking vision. Lids didnt use it as much after Konstantinov's accident though playing a defense first game and still having good numbers due to his team situation. He started to make use of it more post lockout playing a more offensive game.

That's wrong! The bruins didnt have any offense at all apart from Bourque!

I find it most hilarious that Rhiessan says that Bourques era was the most competetive and had most depth amongst elite players but it doesnt apply to the Bruins for some reason apart from Bourque but at the same time Lidströms era is completly void of elite talent but his team is the powerhouse of all time.

 

[Preisst*]

I took Bourque cuz he was better offensively, defensively and in the neutral zone. He was also more physical, not that he relied much on that but it adds to his game over Lidstrom.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I still fail to see the relevance of going on about how early a player became elite, other than the fact that this site, being devoted to prospects and young players, is naturally going to attract that sort of bias.

It doesn't impress me more if a player is great from the ages of 20-33 than it does if they are from 27-40.

It's extremely relevant when that player was elite from the age of 20 until the age of 40. Them 6-7 years gotta be made up somewhere. Unless you think Lidstrom has a few more years in the tank.

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's wrong! The bruins didnt have any offense at all apart from Bourque!

I find it most hilarious that Rhiessan says that Bourques era was the most competetive and had most depth amongst elite players but it doesnt apply to the Bruins for some reason apart from Bourque but at the same time Lidströms era is completly void of elite talent but his team is the powerhouse of all time.

Really? You want to go punch for punch comparing Bourque's Bruin teams and Lidstrom's Wing teams over the years?
Really?

Going back to 2002...we're talking about a team that straight up bought Hasek, Robitaile and Hull in order to win another Cup.
Compared to the Bruins who were too cheap to even sign a decent 3rd or 4th liner to help Bourque.
We're talking about Lidstrom playing with more future HHoF players in almost any given year than Bourque got to play with in his entire career in Boston.

Seriously man, give your head a shake if you think their situations were even remotely close. Even when Bourque's teams were pretty good, they don't compare even remotely with Lidstrom's best teams and most of what you would call one of Lidstrom's average teams would still be considered superior.


What I find hilarious is the constant downplaying of team strength in regards to Lidstrom yet when there was a Potvin vs Lidstrom thread not too long ago, it was one of the very first things brought up against Potvin by the very same people downplaying it for Lidstrom.
Now that, to this day, is hilarious!

 

[RabbinsDuck]

R71- Do you have Bourque ahead of Harvey? Why or why not?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's extremely relevant when that player was elite from the age of 20 until the age of 40. Them 6-7 years gotta be made up somewhere. Unless you think Lidstrom has a few more years in the tank.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "elite." With the exception of Bourque's comeback year in 2000-01, Lidstrom has been quite a bit better comparing only their 35+ seasons.

I agree with Epsilon, that it doesn't matter when their prime was, it just matters how good and for how long (and yes, Bourque has a small but significant edge in "how long").

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Here's some smudging ---

If Bourque was in a fully integrated league, chances are some Fetisov or Kasatonov gives him some more elite competition and he does not end his career with 19 AST Selections.

IMO, Lidstrom was robbed of 2nd Team Selections in '96, '97, '04 and he would have had at least a 2nd in '05.

That brings Lidstrom up to 16 which is about as much as Bourque would have in a fully integrated league.

Bourque had better competition, but I do believe they spent a similar amount of years as 'Top 4 defensemen in the world'.

And thus far, Lidstrom is right there this year as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

R71- Do you have Bourque ahead of Harvey? Why or why not?

Currently I do not but I debate that choice constantly.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "elite." With the exception of Bourque's comeback year in 2000-01, Lidstrom has been quite a bit better comparing only their 35+ seasons.

I agree with Epsilon, that it doesn't matter when their prime was, it just matters how good and for how long (and yes, Bourque has a small but significant edge in "how long").

By 35+ seasons you really mean Bourque's last 2 3/4 seasons with Boston because you sure as hell don't mean 95/96 and 96/97.
So at best Lidstrom has made up a bit on Bourque, less than 3 years.
But why is the cut off age 35? Oh, I see because that's when Bourque's prime ended. Meanwhile, you want to count 2-3 years of Lidstrom's prime in that equation...yep, that's fair right?
Lidstrom's prime goes about '97-'08 or in age, 27-38.
Bourque's prime goes '79-'97 or in age 18-36.

So I have to ask, what in the holy hell does age 35 have to do with anything between these two?

As far "small but significant" in time overall...I'm sorry but if you think these last couple years of Lidstrom's or his first 4-5 should be held on the same level as Bourque's first 7 or so in the league...

Here's some smudging ---

If Bourque was in a fully integrated league, chances are some Fetisov or Kasatonov gives him some more elite competition and he does not end his career with 19 AST Selections.

Wait, so you want to add even more competition to what was already the most tightly packed and highly contested era for top D-men in NHL history in an attempt to bring Bourque back down to Lidstrom's level despite the fact that Lidstrom didn't even face the level that Bourque actually did face?
That sounds completely reasonable...

IMO, Lidstrom was robbed of 2nd Team Selections in '96, '97, '04 and he would have had at least a 2nd in '05.

That brings Lidstrom up to 16 which is about as much as Bourque would have in a fully integrated league.

Complete and utter revisionism.
We have been over '96 and '97 at length around here with Lidstrom coming out on the short end of the stick every time. '04 was an off year for Lidstrom, plain and simple, end of story.
Even accounting for the ghost Lock-out nomination for '05, it could more than easily be argued that Lidstrom needed that year off to return to form and that without it, his slide from '04 might of continued.

Bourque had better competition, but I do believe they spent a similar amount of years as 'Top 4 defensemen in the world'.

In what "world" does 18-19 years = 12-14 years?

And thus far, Lidstrom is right there this year as well.

You honestly think Lidstrom this year is still top 4 in the world?
I dunno man, I would have Chara, Karlsson, Weber, Suter and Campbell just off the top of my head in those top 4 slots ahead of Lidstrom right now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Currently I do not but I debate that choice constantly.



By 35+ seasons you really mean Bourque's last 2 3/4 seasons with Boston because you sure as hell don't mean 95/96 and 96/97.
So at best Lidstrom has made up a bit on Bourque, less than 3 years.
But why is the cut off age 35?

No, actually I meant what I said. If you take the totality of what they did after the age of 35, it's Lidstrom and it isn't close.

I'm pretty sure that 1995-96 is the last season for which Bourque finished ahead of Lidstrom in either Norris or All Star voting.

So I have to ask, what in the holy hell does age 35 have to do with anything between these two?

It's a nice round number and just as relevant as "Bourque was better before the age of X," thing often thrown around here. Which means not very relevant at all in the grand scheme of things.

As far "small but significant" in time overall...I'm sorry but if you think these last couple years of Lidstrom's or his first 4-5 should be held on the same level as Bourque's first 7 or so in the league...

Lidstrom won the Norris last season. In Bourque's first several seasons, he was losing Norrises to Randy Carlyle, Doug Wilson, and Rod Langway. I realize that reputation plays a factor for older defensemen, but I find it hard to believe that that Bourque entered the league as a rookie significantly better than Lidstrom was last year.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No, actually I meant what I said. If you take the totality of what they did after the age of 35, it's Lidstrom and it isn't close.

Again, what does the completely arbitrary age of 35 have to do with anything? Why is that the benchmark? By 35, Bourque is in his 17th season, Lidstrom only his 13th, 14th if not for the LO.

Wouldn't the more accurate and much fairer benchmark be to go by seasons played and I'm sorry but Lidstrom holds no advantage over Bourque for seasons 15-20.
Bourque does hold a significant advantage over Lidstrom for seasons 1-5 and 21-22 though

I'm pretty sure that 1995-96 is the last season for which Bourque finished ahead of Lidstrom in either Norris or All Star voting.

Because Bourque was injured and missed 20 games in 96/97 while playing for the worst team in the league not because Lidstrom was the better player.

It's a nice round number and just as relevant as "Bourque was better before the age of X," thing often thrown around here. Which means not very relevant at all in the grand scheme of things.

Like I just said, by all means lets do seasons played and see how that works out.

Lidstrom won the Norris last season. In Bourque's first several seasons, he was losing Norrises to Randy Carlyle, Doug Wilson, and Rod Langway. I realize that reputation plays a factor for older defensemen, but I find it hard to believe that that Bourque entered the league as a rookie significantly better than Lidstrom was last year.

No but Bourque's seasons 1-6 are better than Lidstrom's 1-6.
I will agree that Lidstrom's 19th season was better than Bourque's 19th but Lidstrom's 18th was not better than Bourque's 18th and Lidstrom's 17th better was not better than Bourque's 17th.

..and please, do not sit there and tell me that Lidstrom's Norris win last year was anything special. All it did was show the dire state today's NHL d-men are in.

 

[canucks4ever]

Currently I do not but I debate that choice constantly.



By 35+ seasons you really mean Bourque's last 2 3/4 seasons with Boston because you sure as hell don't mean 95/96 and 96/97.
So at best Lidstrom has made up a bit on Bourque, less than 3 years.
But why is the cut off age 35? Oh, I see because that's when Bourque's prime ended. Meanwhile, you want to count 2-3 years of Lidstrom's prime in that equation...yep, that's fair right?
Lidstrom's prime goes about '97-'08 or in age, 27-38.
Bourque's prime goes '79-'97 or in age 18-36.

So I have to ask, what in the holy hell does age 35 have to do with anything between these two?

As far "small but significant" in time overall...I'm sorry but if you think these last couple years of Lidstrom's or his first 4-5 should be held on the same level as Bourque's first 7 or so in the league...



Wait, so you want to add even more competition to what was already the most tightly packed and highly contested era for top D-men in NHL history in an attempt to bring Bourque back down to Lidstrom's level despite the fact that Lidstrom didn't even face the level that Bourque actually did face?
That sounds completely reasonable...



Complete and utter revisionism.
We have been over '96 and '97 at length around here with Lidstrom coming out on the short end of the stick every time. '04 was an off year for Lidstrom, plain and simple, end of story.

Haha nice try, when have the majority of posters agreed he came up on the short end of the stick in 1996 and 1997. Jackslater saw lidstrom play both seasons and he thinks lidstrom should have have been runner up to leetch in 1997 and a 2nd team all star in 1996. In 2004, mccabe's all star selection was simply a 'stat' award, lidstrom is miles above him defensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

.

No but Bourque's seasons 1-6 are better than Lidstrom's 1-6.
I will agree that Lidstrom's 19th season was better than Bourque's 19th but Lidstrom's 18th was not better than Bourque's 18th and Lidstrom's 17th better was not better than Bourque's 17th.

Well then, perhaps you should start including Lidstrom's last few seasons as part of his "prime" if you are going to include Bourque's first few seasons as part of his "prime."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Haha nice try, when have the majority of posters agreed he came up on the short end of the stick in 1996 and 1997. Jackslater saw lidstrom play both seasons and he thinks lidstrom should have have been runner up to leetch in 1997 and a 2nd team all star in 1996. In 2004, mccabe's all star selection was simply a 'stat' award, lidstrom is miles above him defensively.

Agree with 2004.

But Scott Stevens should have been runner up to Leetch in 1997

This was the voting in 1997:

NORRIS: Brian Leetch 494 (42-8-3-1-0); Vladimir Konstantinov 178 (2-10-13-6-5); Sandis Ozolinsh 176 (2-12-9-8-3); Chris Chelios 172 (0-7-18-9-6); Scott Stevens 171 (7-8-4-7-4); Nicklas Lidstrom 60 (0-5-2-3-6);

Sandis Ozolinsh's recognition (including his 1st Team All Star nod that year) was a joke.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well then, perhaps you should start including Lidstrom's last few seasons as part of his "prime" if you are going to include Bourque's first few seasons as part of his "prime."

The thing is though we are dealing with 22 seasons vs 20 seasons so there has to be a shift for Bourque somewhere. There is no getting around that.

If you want to use Bourque's last 5 seasons to go against Lidstrom's last 5 then Bourque gets a 2 year advantage at the beginning. That's 2 more years added to what is already a 5 year advantage from the beginning anyway.

By all means, you get to pick your own poison but you WILL be picking one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The thing is though we are dealing with 22 seasons vs 20 seasons so there has to be a shift for Bourque somewhere. There is no getting around that.

If you want to use Bourque's last 5 seasons to go against Lidstrom's last 5 then Bourque gets a 2 year advantage at the beginning. That's 2 more years added to what is already a 5 year advantage from the beginning anyway.

By all means, you get to pick your own poison but you WILL be picking one.

Or I can just not pick a "poison" (aka an arbitrarily selected age range) at all and just compare the length of their primes, where Bourque has a small but significant advantage.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Or I can just not pick a "poison" (aka an arbitrarily selected age range) at all and just compare the length of their primes, where Bourque has a small but significant advantage.

Do me a favour and list their respective primes then and we'll go from there


At least you got the significant part right, just have to work on the small part. 4 seasons at the least and up to 7 seasons at the most is not small.

Small would be a season, maybe two and we are definitely well past that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do me a favour and list their respective primes then and we'll go from there


At least you got the significant part right, just have to work on the small part. 4 seasons at the least and up to 7 seasons at the most is not small.

Small would be a season, maybe two and we are definitely well past that.

Bourque = 1979-80 to 1995-96 = 17 years
Lidstrom = 1996-97 to 2010-11 = 15 years

And yes, I realized I included the lockout for Lidstrom. I think that's fair when talking about "how long was his prime," not "how many elite seasons did he have"

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque = 1979-80 to 1995-96 = 17 years
Lidstrom = 1996-97 to 2010-11 = 15 years

And yes, I realized I included the lockout for Lidstrom. I think that's fair when talking about "how long was his prime," not "how many elite seasons did he have"

C'mon man, there is no way you are including his last 3 years as part of his prime. That's ridiculous!
That's like saying that Bourque in 00/01 regained his prime even though we all know he was not the player he used to be.

Lidstrom has been noticeably slower, looked more tired and has been beat more in the last 3 years than he was in the previous 10 combined.

I'm sorry, you're not going to be able to circumvent your "poison" with BS and that's exactly what this is.


...and 96/97....that's a huge stretch, he didn't really come into his own until halfway through the playoffs that year.
97/98 was the start of his prime.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

C'mon man, there is no way you are including his last 3 years as part of his prime. That's ridiculous!

Didn't you just agree with me that Bourque's first few seasons weren't significantly better than Lidstrom's last few? I mean, if we want to shorten their primes, I could say that Bourque's true prime didn't start until 1986 or 1987 when he started winning Norrises and got votes in the "best defensive defenseman" polls.

That's like saying that Bourque in 00/01 regained his prime even though we all know he was not the player he used to be.

Not really, considering 00/01 was a one-year comeback after 5 or so years of injury-filled and declining play. I remember the late 90s well - Bourque was still very good, but he wasn't considered among the league's absolute elite anymore. Lidstrom is still considered amoung the league's elite, or was as of a month ago (we'll see if he comes back to form this season).

Lidstrom has been noticeably slower, looked more tired and has been beat more in the last 3 years than he was in the previous 10 combined.

And how was Bourque defensively in his first 5 years? Very good I'm sure, but not as good as he'd become.

I'm sorry, you're not going to be able to circumvent your "poison" with BS and that's exactly what this is.

Answer this question yes or no: Was Bourque better in his first few seasons in the NHL than Lidstrom was in his last few seasons?

 

[canucks4ever]

56 to 65 points in the early 80's is nothing special, bourque didnt hit his offensive prime until 83ish.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bourque was paired alternately with Guy Lapointe and Jim Schoenfeld, the veteran defensemen acquired by the Bruins in the offseason. Last year, Bourque spent much of his time with Brad Park. He says he's learned a lot by playing with some of the great names.

"Guy Lapointe was one of my idols, growing up in Montreal," Bourque said. "He played a great game offensively and defensively. Jimmy was excellent on defense, too. Nobody could get around him.

"I learned a lot from Brad before he left and I hope I can learn things from Guy and Jim. They're the kind of guys who like to help young players, just like Brad did" said Bourque, who played like another of the greats.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...381,829334&dq=raymond+bourque+improving&hl=en

I don't think Lidstrom had mentors like that in his early years. One season of Brad McCrimmon was great and all, but...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Didn't you just agree with me that Bourque's first few seasons weren't significantly better than Lidstrom's last few? I mean, if we want to shorten their primes, I could say that Bourque's true prime didn't start until 1986 or 1987.

Good luck with one. 27 goals in 80/81, Better than a PpG player in the playoffs already by 82/83, 96 points in 83/84....yep, good luck!

Not really, considering 00/01 was a one-year comeback after 5 or so years of injury-filled and declining play. I remember the late 90s well - Bourque was still very good, but he wasn't considered among the league's absolute elite anymore. Lidstrom is still considered amoung the league's elite, or was as of a month ago (we'll see if he comes back to form this season).

Yeah, because today's "elite" class of D-men is anywhere close to the class from the 90's. Lidstrom's play the last few years doesn't get him into the elite bracket in the late 90's any more than Bourque's did.

And how was Bourque defensively in his first 5 years? Very good I'm sure, but not as good as he'd become.

Quite good actually, placing high on coach polls as early as 1980 if I recall right.

Answer this question yes or no: Was Bourque better in his first few seasons in the NHL than Lidstrom was in his last few seasons?

Yes, he was. Being a standout for Canada at the '81 Canada Cup at age 20 seems to speak for itself.

 

[Rhiessan71]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...381,829334&dq=raymond+bourque+improving&hl=en

I don't think Lidstrom had mentors like that in his early years. One season of Brad McCrimmon was great and all, but...

Yeah, forget Chaison, Howe, Marsh and for sure Coffey didn't teach him anything offensively right


Either way, gimme a break Devil. I'm even willing to delay Bourque's prime to 82/83 but there is no way in hell you're getting '09-'11 tacked on to Lidstroms', no chance dude, sorry, that's ridiculous!