Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[tarheelhockey]

Funny, as the habs series in 88 contradicts your statement. They held Bourque back and Bruins still demolished them. But I guess thats some sort of conspiracy right?

Before the series, Habs coach Jean Perron hinted at a change in tactics to handle Bourque:

The Canadiens have "special plans" to neutralize Bourque and Neely, Perron said. He refused to elaborate.

Claude Lemieux, however, did not refuse to elaborate:

"The most disciplined team will win the series," said Claude Lemieux. "We also have to pressure Bourque to make sure he can't hang onto the puck too long. He's dangerous when he has control. "

After Boston's loss in game 1:

The rationale here is that the Boston club is heavily dependent on its lone superstar, defenceman Raymond Bourque. He is probably the best in the NHL and it is he who spearheads the Bruins' offence. But he lacks a quality supporting cast back there and is vulnerable, as a result, to the sort of unrelenting pressure the Canadiens brought to bear last night. They believe this strategy will work; they restricted Bourque to three assists in the eight games they played against the Bruins this season.

LA Times beat writer Dan Hafner after Boston's 2-0 win in game 3:

Bourque, as good a defensive player as there is, played all but three minutes of the third period. He made it almost impossible for the Canadiens to get a clear shot at Lemelin.

He also started the play that led to the goal that gave the Bruins a working margin.

The Washington Post, after Boston closed out the series:

"The problem," said Mats Naslund, ... "All we did was dump and chase."

Montreal's dump-and-chase strategy didn't work against Boston's defense. The Bruins defenders constantly won the mucking battles along the boards, and when there was a quality chance, Lemelin was up to it.
...

Afterward, Montreal players spoke highly of Boston defenseman Ray Bourque, who held back offensively during the series. Along with Kluzak, John Wesley, Allan Pederson and Reed Larson, Bourque put the clamps on Montreal's top point scorer during the regular season, Bobby Smith, and kept Naslund and Claude Lemieux from ever having clear shots.

"That's my job," he said. "We're ahead after the first game. We scored the first goal, and we never fell behind after that. Really, I didn't have to go out there and create that much offensively. Both teams were really checking so close that there wasn't much open for the defense to try and create things."

^^^ If you want proof that Bourque would have been a superstar in the current generation, see the quote immediately above. The Habs went into the series with a specific, targeted objective of keeping the puck off his stick with the dump-and-chase, turning the games into a grinding marathon. Bourque responded by holding back, shutting down Montreal's top scoring threats, and jumping into the offense at a few key moments when it had the potential to break the game open. Basically, he did what Lidstrom is best at, a decade before Lidstrom was doing it.


So yeah, go ahead and use the box scores as "proof" that the Bruins didn't need Bourque to win. That only ignores the reality of what happened on the ice.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You can say that this is how things should have happened knowing the teams they played on but we can't just assume Bourque would have had the success Lidstrom had if placed in the same situation because it's a slippery slope to make this kind of assumption for any player.

Except that, in the one season he played on a team built like Lidstrom's... he did win the Cup as a key player. That should lead us to a very reasonable assumption that, with 20 more opportunities during his prime, he could have replicated the feat.

What the Bourque crowd wants to do is give him bonus points for being on a worse team and not winning.

I don't think anybody sees it as a "bonus", it's just that Lidstrom's collection of Cups can be directly attributed to his team situation whereas Bourque's lack of multiple Cups can also be directly attributed to his team situation.

Bonus points aren't the issue, so much as the fact that Lidstrom's hardware is only thing he has over Bourque... and the hardware is very clearly linked to timing and circumstance. Basically, if you are a Cup-counter or trophy-counter you will favor Lidstrom. If you have either seen both players, or are willing to do the research, you will very quickly come to undertand why nearly everyone else favors Bourque.

 

[BraveCanadian]

^^^ If you want proof that Bourque would have been a superstar in the current generation, see the quote immediately above. The Habs went into the series with a specific, targeted objective of keeping the puck off his stick with the dump-and-chase, turning the games into a grinding marathon. Bourque responded by holding back, shutting down Montreal's top scoring threats, and jumping into the offense at a few key moments when it had the potential to break the game open. Basically, he did what Lidstrom is best at, a decade before Lidstrom was doing it.


So yeah, go ahead and use the box scores as "proof" that the Bruins didn't need Bourque to win. That only ignores the reality of what happened on the ice.

Ok, and while we're at it, why don't you admit that Lidstrom most likely would have put up bigger offensive numbers playing in Bourque's era, and on a team that depended on him more?

As I said earlier in the thread - I believe they are both products of their time to a large degree.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok, and while we're at it, why don't you admit that Lidstrom most likely would have put up bigger offensive numbers playing in Bourque's era, and on a team that depended on him more?

He would have put up bigger offensive numbers for sure.

Could he have played a rushing style while still being the best defensive-defenseman in the league?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Except that, in the one season he played on a team built like Lidstrom's... he did win the Cup as a key player. That should lead us to a very reasonable assumption that, with 20 more opportunities during his prime, he could have replicated the feat.




I don't think anybody sees it as a "bonus", it's just that Lidstrom's collection of Cups can be directly attributed to his team situation whereas Bourque's lack of multiple Cups can also be directly attributed to his team situation.

Bonus points aren't the issue, so much as the fact that Lidstrom's hardware is only thing he has over Bourque... and the hardware is very clearly linked to timing and circumstance. Basically, if you are a Cup-counter or trophy-counter you will favor Lidstrom. If you have either seen both players, or are willing to do the research, you will very quickly come to undertand why nearly everyone else favors Bourque.

So now Bourque gets credit for what he "could" have done - if only he had played on a team like the Red Wings - while we simultaneously take away from Lidstrom's accomplishments for actually doing it.

Seriously, I already said I would pick Bourque if I had to pick one but these arguments are getting absolutely ridiculous.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He would have put up bigger offensive numbers for sure.

Could he have played a rushing style while still being the best defensive-defenseman in the league?

That isn't the point.

The point is that you're only making the argument one way to make Bourque appear better.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Except that, in the one season he played on a team built like Lidstrom's... he did win the Cup as a key player. That should lead us to a very reasonable assumption that, with 20 more opportunities during his prime, he could have replicated the feat.
.

Agree with your overall point here, but Bourque did have 2 opportunities in the playoffs with the Avs. He was traded there at the deadline in 2000.

 

[tarheelhockey]

So now Bourque gets credit for what he "could" have done - if only he had played on a team like the Red Wings - while we simultaneously take away from Lidstrom's accomplishments for actually doing it.

Who is giving or taking away accomplishments? Are we just counting trophies here?

Bourque played one (1) season on a team built as solidly as Lidstrom's, at age 40. He was a key player as that team won the Stanley Cup. If there is a question whether he was capable of doing that, it was answered in 2001.

It is a completely reasonable assumption that, had Bourque played his entire career on a team like that, he would have had more than 1 Stanley Cup. The reason it didn't happen has nothing to do with Ray Bourque. So how much weight should that team-related issue hold in a debate over which player was the better defenseman?

That isn't the point.

The point is that you're only making the argument one way to make Bourque appear better.

I just said I agree that Lidstrom would have put up better numbers as the sole star on a 1980s/1990s team. That answered your question pretty directly, did it not?

I am now asking a new question. Bourque showed in the 1988 playoffs (which were brought up, BTW, by a Lidstrom supporter) that he could play a Lidstrom-like style very succcessfully in the middle of the highest-scoring era. Despite a lower PPG than usual, and despite being pretty much the sole focus of the opponent's strategy, he was still singled out as the best player in the series.

In your honest opinion, did Lidstrom have a broad enough skillset to do the reverse, and play a Bourque-like style at such a high level?

 

[Dark Shadows]

13th best between 87-94 while missing 100+ games compared to the players above him. 4th in GPG. All-time might have been a bit hyperbole.

Yes, and I quite agree he was a great goalscorer. I merely had issue with someone calling him among the best of all time. It was really the Bourque/Neely show for a long time in Boston before Oates arrived. Of course by the time Oates arrived, Neely was down to playing only half the season.

They usually had 10-12 guys chipping in offensively. Agreed that they might not have had the scoring punch of the Oilers, Penguins or the late 90s Red wings but reading you and Rhiessan describing them makes them sound like an AHL team with Bourque leading the charge which is nonsense.

Not true. Unless you consider chipping in offensively 50 points(which by 80's standards, would be like scoring 30-35 points in 08)

We are talking about an era in which 1st line players were scoring 100-120+ points here, while on the Bruins it was rare to see 85+ points from your top scorer. In Fact, Bourque lead the Bruins in scoring 5 times, while being 2nd in scoring 5 more times.

Are you saying that these two were on the ice at all time. Back checking at all time?

No. However, the best forwards were on the ice the majority of the time Lidstrom/Coffey were.

we could bring up more series if you want? '92 Bruins vs Habs. Bourque scores 2 points in the first game, is a - player in the second and misses the last two. Boston sweeps the series. Same playoff and and Bruins lose a tight game vs. Pens, Bourque comes back to the second game and Pens crushes Bruins. Bourque is -3 and -2 in the next two games.

You can nitpick and selectively choose series all you want. Bourque was that Boston teams offense and transition game. The guy opposing teams tried to shut down first and foremost.

What exactly is your agenda that you would pick the year Bourque broke his thumb in game 2 against Montreal to harp on his +/-? Yes, they beat Montreal without him. Montreal was not exactly a scoring powerhouse that could exploit when Bourque was not on the ice like the Oilers and Pens could. Boston had Montreal's number in the late 80's, early 90's. But it does not change the facts that Bourque was the guy everyone tried to stop.

'91 they have a series edge against Pens. They lose Neely to that nasty knee injury and they already missing Poulin. They dont stand a chance vs Pens even though this miraculous offensive god who carried the team so far is playing.

Errrr really? Neely was not out. But ineffectual after the hit. The entire dressing room had the flu. They also lost Hodge Jr and Janney all but disappeared that series. Losing Poulin hurt a lot yes, since he was providing second line presence and PK.

That hall of fame loaded Pens team easily walked over the Bruins after they lost 1 of their only 2 guns and their lack of Depth on 2nd and 3rd lines was exposed yes. What is your point?

Poulin, Propp and Christian.

Poulin by this point was constantly missing games and lucky to crack 35 points. Propp was in his post concussion season(Missed almost half of it) and barely played for Boston. And Christian was far under a ppg player the 3 seasons before and during his short tenure in Boston.

Hardly what you can compare to top 10 scoring Selke winners for someone to chip in offensively.

I never said Bruins were better. I said they werent that far apart. I'll give you that they had a better top-4 on defense but whats great about Hudler, Filppula, Samuelsson and Holmström compared to Poulin, Burridge, Propp and Carpenter? The edge being Franzen which must be what you mean.

You are not serious?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Agree with your overall point here, but Bourque did have 2 opportunities in the playoffs with the Avs. He was traded there at the deadline in 2000.

He did, but aside from being thrust into the lineup without time to gel with his new team, he also wasn't playing with a prime Rob Blake in 2000. That acquisition made a big difference, similar to when the Wings went out and plundered the UFA market.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He did, but aside from being thrust into the lineup without time to gel with his new team, he also wasn't playing with a prime Rob Blake in 2000.

Agree that it takes time to gel, but I'm not sure what prime Rob Blake has to do with it.

 

[Wrath]

This is all good stuff and helps add perspective but it always comes back to the fact that Lidstrom did win Cups with his group 4 times and has enjoyed regular season success (making the playoffs with a good to great record) every seasons since he joined the Red Wings. Overall Bourque enjoyed less regular season success and no Cups until his last season with a different team. Somehow people want to make this a negative for Lidstrom - which is ridiculous because I don't know how you punish an athlete for being a winner.

You can say that this is how things should have happened knowing the teams they played on but we can't just assume Bourque would have had the success Lidstrom had if placed in the same situation because it's a slippery slope to make this kind of assumption for any player. We have all seen many stacked teams fall apart come playoff time and some players just can't get it done even when they reach the finals. Actually winning and hoisting that Cup is what it's all about and that is being downplayed here in this comparison.

What the Bourque crowd wants to do is give him bonus points for being on a worse team and not winning. The bonus points should go to Lidstrom because he was a huge part of a quasi dynasty and 4 time Cup winner and it took place over the span of 11 years, which so happens to coincide with his prime.

Hockey is a team game and the purpose is to win and Lidstrom has done as much of that as anyone - maybe not in Cups but the regular season success his teams have had is up there with anyone. When you factor in that he was the Red Wings # 1 defenseman since they started winning Cups and he has 7 Norris trophies and it's a lofty resume to overcome. I don't think Bourque has the hardware or amount of overall success to overcome it no matter how much better he was offensively or how many end of the season all-star nominations he received. Winning is the trump card in sports and the rest is just coulda/shoulda/woulda speculation.

People already recognize Lidstroms 4 cups, that's pretty mu ehch the strongest argument for Lidstrom>Bourque, as we all agree that the norris argument is moot considering the competition faced....

Lidstroms 4 cups are his greatest accomplishment over bourque, and all Tarheel and others are trying to say is that we shouldn't over emphasize the cup argument as winning cups is about having the best team, not about having the best player.

Basically, great teams win cups, a great collection of players+coach makes a great team. Winning the cup is obviously an accomplishment but as it is a team accomplishment it must be taken in context.

Not trying to knock Lidstrom down a peg with these "team context" arguments as much as shine a more fair light on Bourque as to why he was unable to win more cups.

 

[danincanada]

Except that, in the one season he played on a team built like Lidstrom's... he did win the Cup as a key player. That should lead us to a very reasonable assumption that, with 20 more opportunities during his prime, he could have replicated the feat.

Everyone knows Bourque played with the Avs and took a run at the Cup the year before and they didn't get the job done. It just goes to show that even on a stacked team Cups are hard to come by.

There is something to be said for joining a team with players who are already proven winners such as Roy, Sakic and Forsberg and winning versus Lidstrom who grew with his teammates and they became champions together. If one was going to be critical of Bourque in this instance they could say he was tought how to win with the Avs players while Lidstrom learned how to win with the Red Wings players.

I don't think anybody sees it as a "bonus", it's just that Lidstrom's collection of Cups can be directly attributed to his team situation whereas Bourque's lack of multiple Cups can also be directly attributed to his team situation.

Bonus points aren't the issue, so much as the fact that Lidstrom's hardware is only thing he has over Bourque... and the hardware is very clearly linked to timing and circumstance. Basically, if you are a Cup-counter or trophy-counter you will favor Lidstrom. If you have either seen both players, or are willing to do the research, you will very quickly come to undertand why nearly everyone else favors Bourque.

Hardware, championships and being a part of very good to great teams consistently throughout ones career cannot be discounted so easily. That really does trump any advantage Bourque has because putting up more points and being nominated for the end of the season all-star team are nice but it doesn't provide the legacy that Lidstrom has carved out. I don't know how someone could downplay winning in sports as not being hugely important.

Everyone else favours Bourque? Don't get consumed by this one message board that favours players from the past for obvious reasons - it's called the History of Hockey afterall. I've heard analysts (Bob McKenzie) and coaches (Bowman) put Lidstrom on a pedestal higher than Bourque and he hasn't even hung up his skates yet. Lidstrom will eventually get the nostalgia Bourque currently receives. Lidstrom's legacy will place him higher than Bourque in the end. We don't have to guess with Lidstrom because he did accomplish more.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Who is giving or taking away accomplishments? Are we just counting trophies here?

Bourque played one (1) season on a team built as solidly as Lidstrom's, at age 40. He was a key player as that team won the Stanley Cup. If there is a question whether he was capable of doing that, it was answered in 2001.

It is a completely reasonable assumption that, had Bourque played his entire career on a team like that, he would have had more than 1 Stanley Cup. The reason it didn't happen has nothing to do with Ray Bourque. So how much weight should that team-related issue hold in a debate over which player was the better defenseman?

Bourque had two (2) kicks at the can with that Colorado team, although only one full regular season. You know this, why are you fudging?

In any case it may be completely reasonable, but it is still an assumption.

Lots of strong looking teams that we would assume would win the Stanley Cup haven't.

Lidstrom actually *did* it. This is the same sort of argument that comes up between Mario and Wayne supporters.

I just said I agree that Lidstrom would have put up better numbers as the sole star on a 1980s/1990s team. That answered your question pretty directly, did it not?

I am now asking a new question. Bourque showed in the 1988 playoffs (which were brought up, BTW, by a Lidstrom supporter) that he could play a Lidstrom-like style very succcessfully in the middle of the highest-scoring era. Despite a lower PPG than usual, and despite being pretty much the sole focus of the opponent's strategy, he was still singled out as the best player in the series.

In your honest opinion, did Lidstrom have a broad enough skillset to do the reverse, and play a Bourque-like style at such a high level?

Apart from the physicality - which I don't believe would suit Lidstrom as much as the stockier Bourque - yes I do think Lidstrom has the passing, shot, skating and vision to be a more solitary star on an 80s team.

You basically just answered your own question.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Agree that it takes time to gel, but I'm not sure what prime Rob Blake has to do with it.

Just that he gave Bourque the kind of pressure-release that Lidstrom has often enjoyed. It's not a big deal if you don't buy into it, as 1-for-2 is still pretty good

I found this quote a few moments ago, describing Bourque's playoff performance in 2000:

Colorado Avalanche defenseman Raymond Bourque returned to the Stanley Cup playoff wars for Game 3 of the Western Conference finals last Friday, a brace on his left knee, a bull's-eye on his back. The Dallas Stars were going to dump the puck into his corner and then take shots at him. The theory was sound, the execution abysmal. The 39-year-old Bourque, who hadn't played in 18 days, was barely mussed by Dallas as he gamboled for a coltish 35 minutes, 35 seconds—more than seven minutes longer than any other skater in the game. He was on the ice for the last 2:40, and while he didn't need a line change, he did need to switch gloves. The meticulous Bourque exchanged his soggy ones for a dry pair before a face-off with 26.3 seconds left in Colorado's 2-0 victory, which gave the Avalanche a 2-1 series lead.

The performance was as typical for Bourque as it was inspirational for Colorado. The Avalanche had won despite the absence of defenseman Adam Foote, Bourque's physically imposing partner who had sustained a severe cut around his right eye in Game 2 four nights earlier. Bourque and Foote formed the NHL's best defense pair after Bourque was acquired by Colorado in March, and their injuries forced the Avalanche to finesse four wins in the five games that they didn't play together. "Ray hasn't played in more than two weeks, and to step in and perform the way he did in those circumstances was amazing," says Colorado left wing Shjon Podein.

Even as an old man, he was the target of the opponent's strategy... and still played ridiculous minutes and left people wondering how the hell he did it.

Bourque's partner during those games without Foote? A rookie Martin Skoula.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just that he gave Bourque the kind of pressure-release that Lidstrom has often enjoyed. It's not a big deal if you don't buy into it, as 1-for-2 is still pretty good

No, I don't buy it. If we're talking about "pressure releases," I'll take Patrick Roy over anyone Lidstrom played with.

 

[Epsilon]

The line of argument in this thread with respect to team strength is fine but why does it seem like it never gets applied to Doug Harvey in comparisons with Bourque?

 

[tarheelhockey]

If one was going to be critical of Bourque in this instance they could say he was tought how to win with the Avs players while Lidstrom learned how to win with the Red Wings players.

I would find it rather condescending for someone to say a 40-year-old man who was at that time 4th or 5th on the all-time GP list needed to be "taught how to win".

I don't know how someone could downplay winning in sports as not being hugely important.

And I don't know how someone could possibly think that winning = best player.

Bourque had two (2) kicks at the can with that Colorado team, although only one full regular season. You know this, why are you fudging?

See above. I don't think the 2000 season, where Bourque played 14 games with the Avs, is a particularly fair comparison to having a full season and a better group of teammates. But whatever. Make it 1-for-2, nothing changes.

Apart from the physicality - which I don't believe would suit Lidstrom as much as the stockier Bourque - yes I do think Lidstrom has the passing, shot, skating and vision to be a more solitary star on an 80s team.

We agree that Lidstrom didn't have the physicality to play Bourque's game. And we agree that Lidstrom could have been a more solitary star.

The question is, straightforwardly, would Lidstrom have been the best defenseman in the NHL in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Simple question, only requires a yes/no.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The line of argument in this thread with respect to team strength is fine but why does it seem like it never gets applied to Doug Harvey in comparisons with Bourque?

It certainly should be. I have Bourque over Harvey and would rather enjoy seeing fully-developed arguments for Lidstrom vs Harvey.

 

[lazerbullet]

Is there anyone who honestly believes Lidstrom didn't have more help over the course of their careers?

The problem is that some people just go way over the top with the support argument. They like to name a whole bunch of way past-prime stars as a vital argument why Nick Lidstrom won anything.

This is so old news for the Red Wings fans. At first Lidstrom was good only because he had Fedorov and Yzerman. Ten years later he was good because of Zetterberg and Datsyuk. It works other way around also. Fedorov, Datsyuk and Zetterberg were any good because they had Nick Lidstrom. This has been going on for years.

But these people "forget" that Nick Lidstrom has been successful with pretty much two different teams. Detroit has been great for a long time and Nick Lidstrom is the only player who has been there all the way. They "forget" that Nick Lidstrom has played at the similar level no matter who is defensive partner. He won a Norris with Mathieu Dandenault as his main defensive partner, if my memory is not failing me. A whole bunch of average dmen played by far their best hockey with Nick Lidstrom. Lilja, Danny Markov, Dandenault, Dima Bykov, Ericsson. This list doesn't exactly scream all-star. Hell... Ian White is having quietly a career-year.

The point is... Nick Lidstrom makes players and his team better. This stacked team argument is blown way out of proportion. Harvey had also plenty of help. Even more than Lidstrom. Yet, everybody are regarding Harvey higher and this stacked team card is not played against him. Such double standards are amazing. And why is Ray not ahead of Harvey? I feel that Harvey and Lidstrom are very similar. Almost identical. And yet, somehow most people squeeze in Bourque between those two.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok, there is now a Lidstrom vs. Harvey thread.

 

[BraveCanadian]

We agree that Lidstrom didn't have the physicality to play Bourque's game. And we agree that Lidstrom could have been a more solitary star.

The question is, straightforwardly, would Lidstrom have been the best defenseman in the NHL in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Simple question, only requires a yes/no.

I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have been in the conversation with Bourque/Coffey/Chelios etc.. just as he is when we attempt to compare them now.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I don't see any reason why he wouldn't have been in the conversation with Bourque/Coffey/Chelios etc.. just as he is when we attempt to compare them now.

Can you verify that belief by pointing to a specific time when, say, over the course of a playoff series or a significant part of the season he has shown an ability to play a more offensively aggressive style?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did Bobby Orr ever excel playing a conservative, stay at home style?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Did Bobby Orr ever excel playing a conservative, stay at home style?

Good question. I have always heard that he was among the best defenders of his time, and have certainly seem him throw big hits and make incredible plays with the stick. But I don't know of a time he was asked to hang back and play conservatively for a sustained period. Let alone whether he excelled at it.