Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[newfy]

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

Thats what I dont get about people knocking Lidstrom. It should be common sense by now that defenseman hit their prime north of 30 as they gain experience. Saying Lidstrom couldnt win against some guys when he was 25 isnt really fair, just like it wouldnt be fair to Bourque

 

[Redwingsfan84]

I was lucky enough to see the majority or all of their careers and if I am taking a D-men from when after Bobby Orr retired I'm taking St. Nicklas. The perfect machine. Let us not forget that no matter how good Bourque skill was he still never got to win it with his team. Leadership counts for a lot (not saying Raymond was a slouch but I think Lidstrom is one of the most underrated leaders in the history of the game).

 

[Rhiessan71]

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

Yeah cause Niedermayer, Pronger and Chara are better competition than prime Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis and Stevens.

Bourque has non-winning Norris years better than some of Lidstrom's winning years. The same can definitely not be said in reverse, not even remotely.
Lidstrom has been great but Bourque was greater.

Thats what I dont get about people knocking Lidstrom.

Saying that Bourque is better is not knocking Lidstrom. It just means what it means, that Bourque was better.

 

[canucks4ever]

Yeah cause Niedermayer, Pronger and Chara are better competition than prime Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis and Stevens.

Bourque has non-winning Norris years better than some of Lidstrom's winning years. The same can definitely not be said in reverse, not even remotely.
Lidstrom has been great but Bourque was greater.


Saying that Bourque is better is not knocking Lidstrom. It just means what it means, that Bourque was better.

I would take lidstrom's 2000 season over bourque's 1988, lidstrom was better offensively and defensively. Based on adjusted stats bourque puts up 5-7 more poins a season, the offensive gap isnt as big as you think.

 

[Sens Rule]

I was lucky enough to see the majority or all of their careers and if I am taking a D-men from when after Bobby Orr retired I'm taking St. Nicklas. The perfect machine. Let us not forget that no matter how good Bourque skill was he still never got to win it with his team. Leadership counts for a lot (not saying Raymond was a slouch but I think Lidstrom is one of the most underrated leaders in the history of the game).

Bourque went to 4 finals. He was a tremendous leader AND A BETTER PLAYOFF PERFORMER THAN LIDSTROM. Neely was an absolutely deadly playoff player... among the best I have seen. He never won a cup. Winning a Cup depends on your team not your individual performance. Not even Gretzky or Mario could win Cups without strong teams.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I would take lidstrom's 2000 season over bourque's 1988, lidstrom was better offensively and defensively. Based on adjusted stats bourque puts up 5-7 more poins a season, the offensive gap isnt as big as you think.

Isn't as big as I think eh?
Using adjusted stats at par eh...bad idea.
How about looking at finishes on both their own team and for the league?
In '88 he led his team in scoring, in 2000, Lidstrom was 3rd on his team.
Overall, Bourque has multiple top 10 LEAGUE finishes and finished in the top 20 for almost half of his career.
Lidstrom's highest league finish was 17th (next highest was 26th) and even then he finished 4th on his own team.

Not as big as I think my ass!
Using adjusted stats at par, as the answer instead of a tool without any other criteria...good luck with that argument.

 

[Redwingsfan84]

Bourque went to 4 finals. He was a tremendous leader AND A BETTER PLAYOFF PERFORMER THAN LIDSTROM. Neely was an absolutely deadly playoff player... among the best I have seen. He never won a cup. Winning a Cup depends on your team not your individual performance. Not even Gretzky or Mario could win Cups without strong teams.

I'll just agree to disagree with what most of you said. You cant say he was a better playoff performer unless you are merely looking at points. Lids has been to 6 finals and won 4. Lidstrom was a key factor in shutting down the best player in the wold at the time in the Philadelphia series. This is something Raymond was unable to do granted it was Gretzky he had to shut down and Gretzky> Lidstrom but I have a hard time believing Bourque shuts down Lindros as well. It seems like Lidstrom just has a better "aura" of winning surrounding him than Bourque.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

In my opinion, Bourque faced the toughest competition ever. His prime was right in the late 80s/early 90s at the exact same time Chris Chelios, Al MacInnis, Scott Stevens, Brian Leetch, and Larry Murphy were all peaking. Paul Coffey was still great during this time, too. Even the less lights who peaked during this time like Gary Suter and Phil Housley were very good.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

In my opinion, Bourque faced the toughest competition ever. His prime was right in the late 80s/early 90s at the exact same time Chris Chelios, Al MacInnis, Scott Stevens, Brian Leetch, and Larry Murphy were all peaking. Paul Coffey was still great during this time, too. Even the less lights who peaked during this time like Gary Suter and Phil Housley were very good.

And that is without Fetisov or Kasatanov.

 

[Hobnobs]

Isn't as big as I think eh?
Using adjusted stats at par eh...bad idea.
How about looking at finishes on both their own team and for the league?
In '88 he led his team in scoring, in 2000, Lidstrom was 3rd on his team.
Overall, Bourque has multiple top 10 LEAGUE finishes and finished in the top 20 for almost half of his career.
Lidstrom's highest league finish was 17th (next highest was 26th) and even then he finished 4th on his own team.

Not as big as I think my ass!
Using adjusted stats at par, as the answer instead of a tool without any other criteria...good luck with that argument.

In a league where defensemen were encouraged to go on offense and where even defensive defensemen put up decent offensive numbers. Bourque excelled though no doubt about that but defensemen today are not allowed to take the same liberties as Bourque, Coffey, Leetch and MacInnis did.

Yeah cause Niedermayer, Pronger and Chara are better competition than prime Chelios, Coffey, MacInnis and Stevens.

Bourque has non-winning Norris years better than some of Lidstrom's winning years. The same can definitely not be said in reverse, not even remotely.
Lidstrom has been great but Bourque was greater.

Stevens was as tough competition for Bourque as he was to Lidström.

Chara is definitly up there with MacInnis and Chelios when hes at his best. Same with Pronger barring injuries. Can't see why you downplay Niedermeyer post-lockout.

Which non-winning years do you mean? The one where he barely beat out Larry Murphy?

 

[Slapshooter]

Let us not forget that no matter how good Bourque skill was he still never got to win it with his team. Leadership counts for a lot (not saying Raymond was a slouch but I think Lidstrom is one of the most underrated leaders in the history of the game).

That is nonsense, like others have pointed out. Just compare the teams and it will tell why Nick won the Cups at the Detroit and why Ray did not win at the Boston.

It's not like Lidstrom turned Detroit into a dynasty. Red Wings were well stacked (and the best-coached) superstar team during all of their Cup winning years. Bruins were basically a medicore team made contender by - more than anybody else - Bourque. Red Wings had the depth, Bruins did not.

 

[canucks4ever]

Isn't as big as I think eh?
Using adjusted stats at par eh...bad idea.
How about looking at finishes on both their own team and for the league?
In '88 he led his team in scoring, in 2000, Lidstrom was 3rd on his team.
Overall, Bourque has multiple top 10 LEAGUE finishes and finished in the top 20 for almost half of his career.
Lidstrom's highest league finish was 17th (next highest was 26th) and even then he finished 4th on his own team.

Not as big as I think my ass!
Using adjusted stats at par, as the answer instead of a tool without any other criteria...good luck with that argument.

Bourque was 35th in league scoring that year, Lidstrom was 17th. Plenty of defenseman in that era had multiple top twenty finishes throughout thier career, bourque isn't the only one. Bourque's stats wold take a complete nosedive if he was on bowman's redwings, he wouldnt be outscoring yzerman and federov. As always ignore the differences in era and not take into account that defenseman dont join the rush as much anymore.

In the last 15 years, Lidstrom is the only defenseman to hit 80 points. In Bourque's peak years, Suter hit 91, Zubov hit 89, Housley scored 97, and the all time great larry murphy scored 80 plus on 3 occasions. Yeah both eras were equal in terms of offensive output from d-men, lol.

 

[Rhiessan71]

In a league where defensemen were encouraged to go on offense and where even defensive defensemen put up decent offensive numbers. Bourque excelled though no doubt about that but defensemen today are not allowed to take the same liberties as Bourque, Coffey, Leetch and MacInnis did.

...and today, (This part is for you as well Ushvinder) not only are D-men encouraged to play defense first but entire teams are yet no one has any issue giving Lidstrom full credit defensively despite the tighter and more organsized defensive systems that he has enjoyed playing under.
Don't try and downplay Bourque's offense due to the times unless you're prepared to have the same done for Lidstrom's defense due to the times.

Stevens was as tough competition for Bourque as he was to Lidström.

I got news for ya, Stevens' first year in the league was a full decade before Lidstrom.

Chara is definitly up there with MacInnis and Chelios when hes at his best. Same with Pronger barring injuries. Can't see why you downplay Niedermeyer post-lockout.

It's not that Chara, Pronger and company didn't have a good year here and there but none of them had them with any consistency.
Don't you dare try and place them in the same category as MacInnis and ESPECIALLY Chelios.
Chelios almost had sticks that had more top seasons than any of the 3 you mentioned.

Which non-winning years do you mean? The one where he barely beat out Larry Murphy?

Ummm...if he won it, then it wouldn't be a non-winning year now would it and I don't see a single non-winning year of Lidstrom's that was better either.
Anywho...how about '84, '85, '93 and '96. All are seasons that are either as good or better than most of Lidstrom's wins. A couple of them are better than ANY of Lidstrom's wins in fact.

 

[revolverjgw]

Based on adjusted stats bourque puts up 5-7 more poins a season.

He led his team in scoring an incredible 5 times, and in most other years he was only a few points back. He had to carry his teams offensively as well as defensively. I like Bourque's chances of putting up even better numbers if he had played on teams with stacked offenses like Lidstrom or Coffey had.

 

[DaveG]

Let us not forget that no matter how good Bourque skill was he still never got to win it with his team. Leadership counts for a lot (not saying Raymond was a slouch but I think Lidstrom is one of the most underrated leaders in the history of the game).

That says more to the lack of ability in Boston's management to assemble anything around Bourque that would qualify as a contender then it does to Lidstrom's ability as a leader. Even if you look at the Wings weakest cup year with Lidstrom (08) and compare it with the Bruins best year with Bourque (90) the roster comparison is still advantage Wings rather easily. And to try to compare it to the pre-cap Wings teams that won? That would be a joke.

 

[toob]

...bowman's redwings...

Bowman's Red Wings were always near or at the top of highest scoring teams and while the forwards on his Red Wings certainly did have their numbers slashed due to defensive responsibilities and rolling lines this probably helped the defensemen in that they would basically always be on the ice with a line that was an offensive threat

this is one of the reasons that helped Coffey lead the Red Wings in scoring in 95 with all their talented forwards (obviously Coffey is miles above Bourque and Lidstrom offensively also)

...the Wings weakest cup year with Lidstrom (08)...

weakest on paper maybe because that team may even be the best of the 4 cup winning teams in terms of play...

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

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

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

Here are the top scoring Dman seasons by US Dmen since 01

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...p=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&
c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

And from Canada during the same period

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Sure the US has had a blip and has some decent Dmen now but we also have to remember that Lidstrom is playing against more top end forwards from Europe and the US that Bourque didn't ahve to contend with early on in his career either.

Also post 97 Lidstrom should have been in the mix for the Norris as his play was good enough, maybe his style took a while for the voters to appreciate.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

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

Well there is still half a season to play and sure Lidstrom is slowing down and probably won't win the Norris but there ahve been bigger jokes in the past including Clarke winning a Hart when the year's previous winner lead the league in scoring and then wasn't top 10 in the voting and some guy named Orr was like 15 points behind Clarke in the regular season as well.

 

[canucks4ever]

...and today, (This part is for you as well Ushvinder) not only are D-men encouraged to play defense first but entire teams are yet no one has any issue giving Lidstrom full credit defensively despite the tighter and more organsized defensive systems that he has enjoyed playing under.
Don't try and downplay Bourque's offense due to the times unless you're prepared to have the same done for Lidstrom's defense due to the times.




I got news for ya, Stevens' first year in the league was a full decade before Lidstrom.



It's not that Chara, Pronger and company didn't have a good year here and there but none of them had them with any consistency.
Don't you dare try and place them in the same category as MacInnis and ESPECIALLY Chelios.
Chelios almost had sticks that had more top seasons than any of the 3 you mentioned.


Ummm...if he won it, then it wouldn't be a non-winning year now would it and I don't see a single non-winning year of Lidstrom's that was better either.
Anywho...how about '84, '85, '93 and '96. All are seasons that are either as good or better than most of Lidstrom's wins. A couple of them are better than ANY of Lidstrom's wins in fact.

Which would those be? The seasons where he lost the norris to chelios, a player who is worse offensively and defensively than lidstrom? 80 points in 2006 is much harder than 80 points in 7.7 goals per game nhl. Or is it the season where he wasnt even a runner up for best defensive defenseman in nhl coach's polls? or the season where doug wilson was 10 points away from him and 3rd in norris voting? Of course this doesnt take into fact that lidstrom from 2003-2008 was positionaly better defensively than bourque ever was, but i forgot, the norris is supposed to be all about points.

You really seem to think if you put bourque in the nhl from 2000-2009 that he is a 80-95 point scorer, put him in that era and he scores 65-80 at most.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Bourque went to 4 finals. He was a tremendous leader AND A BETTER PLAYOFF PERFORMER THAN LIDSTROM. Neely was an absolutely deadly playoff player... among the best I have seen. He never won a cup. Winning a Cup depends on your team not your individual performance. Not even Gretzky or Mario could win Cups without strong teams.

While I agree that teams win SC's to say that Bourque was the better playoff performer is extremely debatable Lidstrom was an extremely important piece in the 4 cups and has had quite the ride and is IMO the best playoff performer in history from the back end.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sure the US has had a blip and has some decent Dmen now but we also have to remember that Lidstrom is playing against more top end forwards from Europe and the US that Bourque didn't ahve to contend with early on in his career either.

This is a misnomer and total exaggeration. No, there wasn't as many Euro's in the league, mostly no Russians.
At the same time though, there were only 21 teams and almost every team had 2 or 3 loaded up straight scoring lines.
Unlike today where with 30 teams, it's quite rare to even have 2 straight scoring lines.
So while there are more Euro's playing, they do NOT account for a whopping 43% league increase.
Last year, Canadians and Americans accounted for 77.2% of NHL players and it's been around 75% for the last decade.
755 of 978 players are North American. That's an average of 32.6 players per team.
That leaves 223 non-NA players.
223/32.6 = 6.8 or 7 teams
30 - 21 = 9 teams and Europeans already accounted for almost 10% of the league in 1990 as it was. (I used 1990 because that was basically the last year before the Russians really came over)
So going with the 32.6 team average, in 1991 there were roughly 684 players of which 68 of them were non-North American.
Today that number, as above, is 223 players. That's an increase of 155 players.
Again, that only covers 4.75 teams, a far cry from the 9 team increase through expansion.

So while the European population of the NHL has gone up by 200-250%, that is still not enough to cover the 9 expansion teams through the early 90's and 2000's.

Whether or not Bourque faced fewer total top players matters little when the top players he did face were more condensed on fewer teams.


Either way, I think the poll itself has spoken and it's really not close

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Lidstrom is clearly a better playoff performer, though it's not by a big margin, it is clear.

Bourque's offense dropped in the playoffs by about 16% while Lidstrom drops only 4% from the regular season. If you adjust for league scoring - their PPG is exactly the same. With Lidstrom having the edge in defensive play (and being credited with shutting down star players), games played, championships and a Conn Smythe to boot.

Everyone rightfully praises Pronger for the playoffs, but Lidstrom has been better, and for longer.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

That would be a year older than when Bourque placed 4th in Norris voting and 2nd in AS voting, beating out Salming, Howe and Potvin.

The only defenseman in the NHL who was clear-cut better than 19-21 year old Bourque was Larry Robinson, and Bourque surpassed him quickly. Fetisov and maybe Kasatonov would be in that conversation internationally, but of course they had a couple of years' experience on Bourque as well.

Lidstrom didn't even experience world-class hockey until age 21, where to his credit he had some All Star consideration (an almost identical vote spread to James Patrick) but was nowhere near the Norris conversation. At that age, Bourque already had two 1st Teams and one 2nd Team under his belt, and was the Norris runner-up.

In a previous thread I found pretty convincing evidence that even Detroit writers, let alone the rest of the hockey world, considered Lidstrom good but not elite prior to around 1996. Unless you believe that gross ignorance was the rule of the day, that pegs Lidstrom's entry into Bourque's neighborhood at around age 25 -- and that is giving him some benefit of the doubt in regard to still not getting postseason recognition. At age 25, Bourque was entering a season where he won the Norris and was the Hart runner-up to prime Wayne Gretzky.

So no, longetivity is not a wash. It's being fair to Lidstrom to say he would match Bourque's longetivity as an elite player if he could tack on 2 more Norris contending seasons to match Bourque's 99 and 01. At which point he will merely lack the peak value.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I would take lidstrom's 2000 season over bourque's 1988, lidstrom was better offensively and defensively. Based on adjusted stats bourque puts up 5-7 more poins a season, the offensive gap isnt as big as you think.

How are you coming to the conclusion that 1988 Bourque's defense was worse than 2000 Lidstrom's?

 

[DRWCountryClub]

I love how people bring up the argument that Lidstrom played for better teams. Maybe he has over his career but the Cup winning teams were, amongst the league, 3rd, 5th, 1st, and 1st, the only real 'powerhouse' team was the 02 team. In '08 the Wings second line center for much of the playoffs was Filppula(not exactly powerhouse).

What's funny is that Bourque played for 1st place teams and was never able to win the Cup, but he gets a pass. He gets a complete pass for not winning the Cup or being able to lead his team to a Cup(Lidstrom has) despite playing on some very good teams.

I've talked to people who have seen both guys play their entire careers and some say Lidstrom, some say Bourque. I only saw Bourques second half. From what I saw, Lidstrom has been better in his second half. It seems Bourques first half was better than Lidstrom's.

I don't think points are a good argument, because Bourque played during very high scoring eras during his prime, and Lidstrom is the only dman to score over 1000 points that didn't play in the 80's anyway.

The competition argument is about all Bourque supporters have to go on, and it's somewhat true given that he placed what, 13 times a First All star, although we all know Lidstrom has two more Norris Trophies. I'd like to point out the Lidstrom went up against a prime Pronger and Neidermayer(I know Neids isn't that special, but still a surefire HoFer) and very easily dominated the Norris trophy voting against two very good players and had to deal with a Canadian bias before he won in 2000. The only player he's arguably worse than from Bourque's generation is Bourque himself.

Anyway, more people choose Bourque here and that's fine. I'll choose Lidstrom. More Cups, Conn Smythe, more Norris's, and hell, even a Gold Medal(I know my fellow Canadians like to throw that in there) does it for me.