Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Hobnobs]

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.



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.



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



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.


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 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.


You are not serious?

I might add that Im exclusively talking about playoffs now.

 

[Dark Shadows]

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




Claude Lemieux, however, did not refuse to elaborate:




After Boston's loss in game 1:




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




The Washington Post, after Boston closed out the series:



^^^ 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.

Excellent post and quotes

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did anyone actually need proof that Bourque would be a superstar in the current generation? He was a First Team All Star in 1980 and a First Team All Star in 2001. I think it's pretty obvious he'd excel in any era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Did anyone actually need proof that Bourque would be a superstar in the current generation? He was a First Team All Star in 1980 and a First Team All Star in 2001. I think it's pretty obvious he'd excel in any era.

Perhaps it's the lack of evidence going in the other direction that is more significant.

 

[toob]

Look for all of this Lidstrom help talk to stop when Lidstrom's number is retired by the Red Wings they will likely publish a book like they did for Yzerman and retroactively for Howe and Lindsay which among other things has detailed stats like how many games he played with every other player throughout his career who assisted on how many of his goals and how many assists he got on other players goals for both regular season and playoffs. Hopefully then we can stop the tired speculation on the matter.

Can we just say for simplification that Lids had a better supporting cast but that a lot of people here seem to really downplay Bourque's own supporting cast? Or is it just me who thinks this?

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?

I already noted that Lidstrom did have the skillset to be quite a good puck moving offensive defenseman. His skating especially has always been underrated because hes never relied on it much.

As to the question of playing at Bourque's level well the more i look at it the answer seems like no but i also dont think Bourque could play as well defensively as Lidstrom if he was in a similar situation as Lids.

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?

Lidstrom played a bit more aggressive offensively in the 96 playoffs especially against Colorado and i remember he was (a bit unfairly) lumped in with Coffey as the pairing was criticized for being good offensively but not defensively but then again you could also say the praise for offense came mostly on Coffey's part as well.

Lidstrom post lockout has played a more offensive game than pre lockout during his elite years after Konstantinov's injury. It probably isnt as big of a shift in stye as youre looking for though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Perhaps it's the lack of evidence going in the other direction that is more significant.

I think it's about as significant as whether Bobby Orr would be successful playing a less wide-open style in a more systems-driven league.

As in, not relevant at all. I care about what these guys actually did, not how they could have done in hypothetical situations.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Perhaps it's the lack of evidence going in the other direction that is more significant.

Lidstrom has been in the league 20 years now, has 1st team allstars spanning 13 years, and Norris trophies a full decade apart playing through three fairly distinct times in NHL history. (tail end of free flowing 80s/early 90s - deadpuck - post lockout)

I think that is some very good evidence that he too would do very well in any era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think it's about as significant as whether Bobby Orr would be successful playing a less wide-open style in a more systems-driven league.

I do actually think that's a significant question, in the sense of evaluating whether his performance was partially a product of circumstance. But that's a different thread and I would be on the "no" side of the argument anyway.

As in, not relevant at all. I care about what these guys actually did, not how they could have done in hypothetical situations.

In that case, it's quite simple: Bourque played Lidstrom's game but Lidstrom never played Bourque's.

 

[overpass]

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.

Orr played more conservatively in the 76 Canada Cup.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I said this before but it needs repeating.

If, according to a few in this thread, Lidstrom's 4 Cups, his Conn Smythe and being a major piece on those Cup teams is assigned enough weight to allow him to pass Bourque.
Then how come Neidermayer's 4 Cups, Conn Smythe and being a major piece of those Cup teams isn't even given enough weight to get him into the top 20?

Consistency much?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Orr played more conservatively in the 76 Canada Cup.

I'm going to make the possibly-too-obvious assumption that this had to do with Orr's knees?

Interesting to note that an injured Orr, playing conservatively, was still the MVP of a best-on-best international tournament. That certainly chips away at claims that his greatness was a product of his era.

 

[Sens Rule]

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.




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.



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.

Lidstrom should not have win the Norris last season. He wasn't close to the best defenseman. He got it on reputation... And maybe Lidstrom didn't get quite as many votes for AS and Norris until he earned his reputation.

Bourque came in the NHL... Not as a top overall pick but late in the first round. He had no reputation... He was just a raw rookie. Making the All-star team was an astounding accomplishment.

Any this thread is dumb... How about if you born in the 80's or 90's you don't get to post in it? Two modern players with so many silly opinions based on stats and silly assumptions. We aren't talking about Eddie Shore! Seriously people can't respect the opions of those that actually saw both Oc them play live.. A lot... Bourque wins decisively with those that are old enough to have seen them both play at their best.

 

[Sens Rule]

Orr played more conservatively in the 76 Canada Cup.

And he was done at that point... So injured. Think 1969 Orr plays like that? Doubt it.

 

[Sens Rule]

I said this before but it needs repeating.

If, according to a few in this thread, Lidstrom's 4 Cups, his Conn Smythe and being a major piece on those Cup teams is assigned enough weight to allow him to pass Bourque.
Then how come Neidermayer's 4 Cups, Conn Smythe and being a major piece of those Cup teams isn't even given enough weight to get him into the top 20?

Consistency much?

Because Lidstrom and Bourque are massively better than Niedermeyer wasn't usually the best member of his team. Conn Smythe for Nieds was weak selection... Pronger wins it if he didn't like elbowing people in the head so much. Pahlsson should have won it... If series goes 6 or 7 games Alfredsson wins it. Those Ducks were a deep team... Niedermeyers playoff wasn't even that amazing. Bourque has far superior playoffs then Nieds did in his Smythe year... He got picked just because they had to pick a Duck. I mean he had a good playoff... But it was not near an all time great one.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Because Lidstrom and Bourque are massively better than Niedermeyer wasn't usually the best member of his team. Conn Smythe for Nieds was weak selection... Pronger wins it if he didn't like elbowing people in the head so much. Pahlsson should have won it... If series goes 6 or 7 games Alfredsson wins it. Those Ducks were a deep team... Niedermeyers playoff wasn't even that amazing. Bourque has far superior playoffs then Nieds did in his Smythe year... He got picked just because they had to pick a Duck. I mean he had a good playoff... But it was not near an all time great one.

So what you're saying is that 4 Cups is more about team and less about one player?
And that who wins the Conn Smythe can be very subjective?

Interesting.

I mean heaven forbid that anyone would ever call Lidstrom's Cup winning teams deep

Look, just call a spade a spade. Niedermayer comes out on top of either Bourque or Lidstrom in team orientated trophies and awards and no one is going to argue that Scott was anywhere close to either of them.
So lets just give the team awards the weight they deserve consistently from player to player shall we?

 

[SirKillalot]

Lidstrom. Close, but easy.


Though he will never win on a Canadian/American board.

He will however win on a European board.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom should not have win the Norris last season. He wasn't close to the best defenseman. He got it on reputation... And maybe Lidstrom didn't get quite as many votes for AS and Norris until he earned his reputation.

Bourque came in the NHL... Not as a top overall pick but late in the first round. He had no reputation... He was just a raw rookie. Making the All-star team was an astounding accomplishment.

Any this thread is dumb... How about if you born in the 80's or 90's you don't get to post in it? Two modern players with so many silly opinions based on stats and silly assumptions. We aren't talking about Eddie Shore! Seriously people can't respect the opions of those that actually saw both Oc them play live.. A lot... Bourque wins decisively with those that are old enough to have seen them both play at their best.

I realize that you prefer Bourque, but do you really need to make statements full of ridiculous hyperbole like "Lidstrom wasn't even close to the best last year!"

 

[Sens Rule]

So what you're saying is that 4 Cups is more about team and less about one player?
And that who wins the Conn Smythe can be very subjective?

Interesting.

I mean heaven forbid that anyone would ever call Lidstrom's Cup winning teams deep

Look, just call a spade a spade. Niedermayer comes out on top of either Bourque or Lidstrom in team orientated trophies and awards and no one is going to argue that Scott was anywhere close to either of them.
So lets just give the team awards the weight they deserve consistently from player to player shall we?

There is no argument? I don't get your point? Bourque is not Marcel Dionne. He had several trips to
The final and other deep playoffs. Clearly Bourque was a great playoff player, and was the best player on his team every year but perhaps the crazy scoring early in his career by Middleton and Pederson... Other than that in Boston he is the best player on teams that won a lot of playoff series.

And for his career Lidstrom wax on the best team
Of his era... And he was only the best player on it post lockout. Before that he is a lot more like Bourque in Colorado then Bourque in Boston.

Doug Gilmour was the best forward I saw in the playoffs in watching hockey except Gretzky. And he won a single Cup and he was a great player but not as good as his playoffs were. And not just in Toronto. Bourque and Neely were great playoff performers. Even when they didn't make the final.

I don't judge Lidstrom less because he was on a great team... But he is not Fedorov in the playoffs either. He was always good, very, very good. Fedorov was a beast.

I guess I am rambling... I don't think Lidstrom has any kind of at off edge on Bourque at all. And that Bourque and Lidstrom were better playoff performers than Niedermeyer.

If you are Bourque... You get the credit if you win a Cup in Boston... If Gilmour had won a Cup in Toronto he owns that... Gretzky in 1993... Pronger in 2006.... Niedermeyer in 2007 is not in that mould and his team
Won!!!!

Personally... And other disagree... And I respect that. I take Bourque in the playoffs over Lidstrom... For peak or career... Maybe it was watching all those Adams division playoffs.. I just don't see Lidstrom in the same game changing light... But I could be wrong on that... Just my opinion.

 

[Sens Rule]

I realize that you prefer Bourque, but do you really need to make statements full of ridiculous hyperbole like "Lidstrom wasn't even close to the best last year!"

He wasn't. It was also his worst season since his first couple. Still great but not near Lidstrom
Level or worthy of the Norris. Chara says hello.

And it is not on Lidstrom... But the voters... The best season ever by a defenseman his age... But he won that Norris on reputation not on
Merit... At least in my opinion.

 

[toob]

Any this thread is dumb... How about if you born in the 80's or 90's you don't get to post in it? Two modern players with so many silly opinions based on stats and silly assumptions. We aren't talking about Eddie Shore! Seriously people can't respect the opions of those that actually saw both Oc them play live.. A lot... Bourque wins decisively with those that are old enough to have seen them both play at their best.

See i always wonder about this. Things like Center Ice and Gamecenter Live and NHL Network werent around in the 90s and before so im really wondering exactly how people can really see enough of players that didnt play close to where they live back in the day. Sure in the later rounds of the playoffs the games start being broadcast nationally but any other time?

At least from my own experience i lived close enough to Canada to even get CBC in the 90s and i still wouldnt say that i had a clue of hockey outside the Red Wings for most of that time (partly because i wasnt really interested in hockey outside my team but even if i was the facilities werent there). Really with the way the NHL has been made so much more accessible post lockout it doesnt even compare to how hard it was to follow an out of market team before that.

and ofc there was no hfboards so it was truly a time of ignorance

 

[thehangover]

And for his career Lidstrom wax on the best team
Of his era... And he was only the best player on it post lockout. Before that he is a lot more like Bourque in Colorado then Bourque in Boston.

So you mean that lidstrom was not the best player when he won his con smythe?

 

[Sens Rule]

See i always wonder about this. Things like Center Ice and Gamecenter Live and NHL Network werent around in the 90s and before so im really wondering exactly how people can really see enough of players that didnt play close to where they live back in the day. Sure in the later rounds of the playoffs the games start being broadcast nationally but any other time?

At least from my own experience i lived close enough to Canada to even get CBC in the 90s and i still wouldnt say that i had a clue of hockey outside the Red Wings for most of that time (partly because i wasnt really interested in hockey outside my team but even if i was the facilities werent there). Really with the way the NHL has been made so much more accessible post lockout it doesnt even compare to how hard it was to follow an out of market team before that.

and ofc there was no hfboards so it was truly a time of ignorance

I saw lots of Boston and Detroit living in Ottawa... Especially because all the playoffs were on TV... I guess in the USA.. You might not see so much of other teams before centre ice and stuff.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So you mean that lidstrom was not the best player when he won his con smythe?

Lidstrom has a good case as the best player in the world in 2001-02, let alone best player on his team.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom has a good case as the best player in the world in 2001-02, let alone best player on his team.

Not exactly a very high bar set for that title at the time though. Forsberg out the whole season, Sakic, Oates and Jagr in decline, Iginla playing spectacular on a non-playoff team, Naslund and Bertuzi just starting to hit their stride in Vancouver, Mario only playing 24 games.

Not really much different than Pronger's Hart in '00. Winning it more by default when Jagr misses 19 games.

Titles and awards are all well and good but they also have to be defined by the competition for them.

It's like '96. Colorado won the Cup by sweeping the Panthers but no one really remembers that. What they remember was the Av's/Wings from the Conf final.
No different than '02. Does anyone really remember that the Wings beat the Caines in 5? No, again what everyone remembers is the Conf Final with the AV's.

If you win the Cup without beating anyone of note or really being tested, it gets diminished. Happens to the '93 Habs win all the time.
It's no different with awards.

Ali was the greatest because he did it all and beat the best of the best not the best of the rest.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not exactly a very high bar set for that title at the time though. Forsberg out the whole season, Sakic, Oates and Jagr in decline, Iginla playing spectacular on a non-playoff team, Naslund and Bertuzi just starting to hit their stride in Vancouver, Mario only playing 24 games.

Not really much different than Pronger's Hart in '00. Winning it more by default when Jagr misses 19 games.

But you agree that he was the best player on the Wings by at least 2002, right?