Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Rhiessan71]

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

Yeah man, that's a fair statement and prolly in the running for best in the world that year as well, like you said. I wasn't disagreeing, just putting it in context.
I still think Yzerman was the best Red Wing on the ice through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs though


Being the best in the world in '02 is not the same as being the best in the world in '92 or '82.

 

[canucks4ever]

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.

2002 was a weird year, it was like the end of the 90's guys and the beginning of the iginla-thornton-luongo generation. The best in the world was between lidstrom,iggy and theodore, but when playoffs are factored in it would be tough to go against lids.

Ali was the best heavyweight, best fighter IMO is ray robinson.

 

[Dark Shadows]

2002 was a weird year, it was like the end of the 90's guys and the beginning of the iginla-thornton-luongo generation. The best in the world was between lidstrom,iggy and theodore, but when playoffs are factored in it would be tough to go against lids.

Ali was the best heavyweight, best fighter IMO is ray robinson.

Agreed regarding Sugar Ray.

 

[pluppe]

You are talking to the wrong person here. I know intimately just how dangerous Bourque was or wasn't vs the Habs over the years. I haven't missed a single Habs playoff game since 1978.
When the Habs had the Bruins number in the 80's, Bourque was still their most dangerous player. Even when Neely was lighting the Habs up bad in the early 90's, Bourque was still by far the toughest obstacle for those Habs teams to overcome both offensively and defensively.

Bourque was the B's best player for almost 2 decades. Everything ran through him and those teams lived or died through him. I have some Habs/B's playoff games from '92 on tape and I swear to god Bourque plays a minimum of 40 minutes per game.
NHL.com only goes back to 97/98 but it lists Bourque averaging 35 minutes a game in the playoffs that year.
Looking up Lidstrom, his average is closer to 28 minutes per playoff game over the last 14 years with only 3-4 years where he even broke 30 minutes.

Bourque couldn't quite do it all but he was the closest to Orr as anyone I have ever seen and that's still a fair sized gap.



Who said they were bad? I didn't. We were talking about the difference between Olympic caliber teams and a good NHL team like the Sharks.
It's no contest, try and follow the context please.

I´m curious. Exactly how much more than Lidström do you think Bourque averaged in icetime over his career in the regular season and the playoffs? Do you really believe that they differ significantly or are you just saying stuff?

 

[Rhiessan71]

I´m curious. Exactly how much more than Lidström do you think Bourque averaged in icetime over his career in the regular season and the playoffs? Do you really believe that they differ significantly?

Oh yeah, no doubt about it for a second.
Bourque needed to have many extra sets of gloves ready because they would get so drenched in sweat that he would change them every period, sometimes twice a period.

35 minutes was a low night for Bourque.

But before Devil jumps on me for not being fair to Lidstrom, it was a different time back then. Teams did not run 45 second shifts like today and it wasn't uncommon for a teams' top line to stay on the ice for minutes at a time.
Most teams back then only really ran 3 lines and 4 D for the majority of games.

 

[danincanada]

Oh yeah, no doubt about it for a second.
Bourque needed to have many extra sets of gloves ready because they would get so drenched in sweat that he would change them every period, sometimes twice a period.

35 minutes was a low night for Bourque.

But before Devil jumps on me for not being fair to Lidstrom, it was a different time back then. Teams did not run 45 second shifts like today and it wasn't uncommon for a teams' top line to stay on the ice for minutes at a time.
Most teams back then only really ran 3 lines and 4 D for the majority of games.

The increased ice-time due to the slower pace would help boost Bourque's offensive numbers, no?

Also, the depth the Red Wings have had has actually hurt Lidstrom's production in some ways. They have usually had two separate powerplay units so Lidstrom usually only got to play half the powerplay. Looking back at the ice-times when the NHL first started logging them Bourque definitely got more PP time than Lidstrom (1:00 to 1:30 more per game). Another factor that would increase his offensive numbers.

 

[pluppe]

Oh yeah, no doubt about it for a second.
Bourque needed to have many extra sets of gloves ready because they would get so drenched in sweat that he would change them every period, sometimes twice a period.

35 minutes was a low night for Bourque.

But before Devil jumps on me for not being fair to Lidstrom, it was a different time back then. Teams did not run 45 second shifts like today and it wasn't uncommon for a teams' top line to stay on the ice for minutes at a time.
Most teams back then only really ran 3 lines and 4 D for the majority of games.

so what is your answer to my questions? anecdotes tells me little about what you actually believe he played on average in regular season and playoffs throuhout his career.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah man, that's a fair statement and prolly in the running for best in the world that year as well, like you said. I wasn't disagreeing, just putting it in context.
I still think Yzerman was the best Red Wing on the ice through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs though


Being the best in the world in '02 is not the same as being the best in the world in '92 or '82.

No you are right in 82 most of the top players in Europe were still in Europe.

I know you mean Wayne (and Mario), but the rest of the competition in 82 and 92 isn't really all that different than 02 in reality although our perception of 02 might be.

 

[SirKillalot]

Yeah man, that's a fair statement and prolly in the running for best in the world that year as well, like you said. I wasn't disagreeing, just putting it in context.
I still think Yzerman was the best Red Wing on the ice through the first 3 rounds of the playoffs though


Being the best in the world in '02 is not the same as being the best in the world in '92 or '82.

Agree. In 02 teams actually knew how to play defense as a unit. Thus making it a lot more difficult.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The increased ice-time due to the slower pace would help boost Bourque's offensive numbers, no?

It would also boost the offensive numbers of everyone else in the league.

During the 1980s, Bourque was .10 points per game more productive than any defenseman not named Paul Coffey. He significantly outscored Al MacInnis, Denis Potvin, Phil Housley, Mark Howe, Larry Murphy, Chris Chelios, Larry Robinson, Scott Stevens... not a bad group of offensive performers. He nearly doubled Borje Salming's numbers. Even if you only look at the first half of the 1980s, when Bourque was a fresh-faced young gun, he was second only to Coffey and had a higher PPG than prime Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Howe and everybody else.

Any way you want to spin it, Bourque was simply the best offensive producer of the post-Orr era except for Paul Coffey... and nobody ever called Coffey the best defensive defenseman in the league.

By the way, in regard to ice time. I don't know about average, but a quick scan of Google archives produced the following:

Game 1 of the 1990 Finals - 58:26 (the game was 115:13 long)
Nov 18, 1989 - 39:40
1994-95 - 28-30 minutes per game
2001 - 28:32 in the playoffs, 29:35 in Game 7

All indications are that he played 30-40 a night during his peak.

 

[danincanada]

It would also boost the offensive numbers of everyone else in the league.

During the 1980s, Bourque was .10 points per game more productive than any defenseman not named Paul Coffey. He significantly outscored Al MacInnis, Denis Potvin, Phil Housley, Mark Howe, Larry Murphy, Chris Chelios, Larry Robinson, Scott Stevens... not a bad group of offensive performers. He nearly doubled Borje Salming's numbers. Even if you only look at the first half of the 1980s, when Bourque was a fresh-faced young gun, he was second only to Coffey and had a higher PPG than prime Potvin, Robinson, Salming, Howe and everybody else.

Any way you want to spin it, Bourque was simply the best offensive producer of the post-Orr era except for Paul Coffey... and nobody ever called Coffey the best defensive defenseman in the league.

By the way, in regard to ice time. I don't know about average, but a quick scan of Google archives produced the following:

Game 1 of the 1990 Finals - 58:26 (the game was 115:13 long)
Nov 18, 1989 - 39:40
1994-95 - 28-30 minutes per game
2001 - 28:32 in the playoffs, 29:35 in Game 7

All indications are that he played 30-40 a night during his peak.

Lidstrom played 33:19 in game 1, 34:38 in game 2 and 52:03 in game 3 of the '02 finals. The main difference between Bourque and Lidstrom was that the Red Wings coaching staff typically had more depth on the blueline so they didn't have to play Lidstrom as much. Obviously as the pace of the game picked up over the years everyone started playing shorter shifts and less overall.

My point still stands regarding PP time...that's a key time to rack up points and Bourque certainly benefitted from playing more in that situation and from what I can tell it appears he typically played less on the PK than Lidstrom.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Peak MacInnis and Leetch were as good offensively as Bourque, but he maintained it for longer

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lidstrom played 33:19 in game 1, 34:38 in game 2 and 52:03 in game 3 of the '02 finals. The main difference between Bourque and Lidstrom was that the Red Wings coaching staff typically had more depth on the blueline so they didn't have to play Lidstrom as much. Obviously as the pace of the game picked up over the years everyone started playing shorter shifts and less overall.

I don't see how playing more minutes can be construed as anything other than a positive, TBH. It's not like Bourque was a one-way player who piled on stats with the extra minutes. He legitimately took care of both ends of the ice throughout those 30-40 minutes a night, and did so at a better level than anyone else in the league.

My point still stands regarding PP time...that's a key time to rack up points and Bourque certainly benefitted from playing more in that situation and from what I can tell it appears he typically played less on the PK than Lidstrom.

Overpass' numbers suggest Bourque actually played more on the PK.

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Ray Bourque | 1980 | 2001 | 1612 | 42% | 1.37 | 0.95 | 39 | 39 | 87% | 1.11 | 58% | 0.88
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2011 | 1494 | 40% | 1.40 | 1.18 | 33 | 34 | 72% | 1.25 | 52% | 0.80

The point stands about PP points, though Bourque's 32% goal-scoring lead suggests there would still be a gap even if we adjusted Lidstrom's numbers for ice time and era. I can't find PP points listed in the usual databases... is that stat not tracked?

 

[TheNudge]

Bourque had both the higher peak and greater longetivity.

So... Bourque.

I voted for Lidstrom. I gotta agree that at the peek Bourque was better then Lidstrom. But I gotta got with lidstrom with longetivity. I rather Ldstrom over then Bourque cause Lidstrom did everything welll and needed for is team to win. He won 4 Cup all ready and Bourque was giving one with colorado. Lidstrom is more of a winner then Bourque. Also I'm a big Detroit fan.

 

[overpass]

I don't see how playing more minutes can be construed as anything other than a positive, TBH. It's not like Bourque was a one-way player who piled on stats with the extra minutes. He legitimately took care of both ends of the ice throughout those 30-40 minutes a night, and did so at a better level than anyone else in the league.



Overpass' numbers suggest Bourque actually played more on the PK.

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Ray Bourque | 1980 | 2001 | 1612 | 42% | 1.37 | 0.95 | 39 | 39 | 87% | 1.11 | 58% | 0.88
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2011 | 1494 | 40% | 1.40 | 1.18 | 33 | 34 | 72% | 1.25 | 52% | 0.80

The point stands about PP points, though Bourque's 32% goal-scoring lead suggests there would still be a gap even if we adjusted Lidstrom's numbers for ice time and era. I can't find PP points listed in the usual databases... is that stat not tracked?

nhl.com has PP points, which have been officially tracked since 1987-88.

I also have unofficial PP points, from the Hockey Summary Project's boxscores, from 1952-53 to 1986-87.

The adjusted power play point numbers I have posted ($PPP/S) adjust for the league PP scoring level and the team's number of power play opportunities.

Career situational scoring numbers for Bourque and Lidstrom, unadjusted:

Player | ESG | ESA | ESP | PPG | PPA | PPP | SHG | SHA | SHP
Raymond Bourque | 221 | 552 | 773 | 173 | 586 | 759 | 16 | 29 | 45
Nicklas Lidstrom | 115 | 376 | 490 | 128 | 445 | 573 | 10 | 30 | 40

 

[pluppe]

I don't see how playing more minutes can be construed as anything other than a positive, TBH. It's not like Bourque was a one-way player who piled on stats with the extra minutes. He legitimately took care of both ends of the ice throughout those 30-40 minutes a night, and did so at a better level than anyone else in the league.



Overpass' numbers suggest Bourque actually played more on the PK.

Player | Start | End | GP | EV% | R-ON | R-OFF | $ESP/S | $PPP/S | PP% | TmPP+ | SH% | TmSH+
Ray Bourque | 1980 | 2001 | 1612 | 42% | 1.37 | 0.95 | 39 | 39 | 87% | 1.11 | 58% | 0.88
Nicklas Lidstrom | 1992 | 2011 | 1494 | 40% | 1.40 | 1.18 | 33 | 34 | 72% | 1.25 | 52% | 0.80

The point stands about PP points, though Bourque's 32% goal-scoring lead suggests there would still be a gap even if we adjusted Lidstrom's numbers for ice time and era. I can't find PP points listed in the usual databases... is that stat not tracked?

of course playing a lot for an elite player is a positive. but people on both sides of this debate constantly use stats in a hypocritical way. you can´t both argue that somebody is superior because he played more. is better offensively based on raw stats and claim the other guy was helped by playing on a better team.

if a player is helped in some ways by being on a better team he is probably also punished in the ice-time category because there is not the same need to play him as much. giving the other layer credit for both being on a worse team and for playing more is very dishonest.

if a player gets 10% more icetime you can not use the raw stats that he scored 10% more as evidence that he is 10% more skilled offensively. giving a player credit for playing more and also using the stats compiled during this longer time on the ice at face value as proof of higher offensive qualities is dishonest.

 

[toob]

The increased ice-time due to the slower pace would help boost Bourque's offensive numbers, no?

i always assumed that slower pace negates the extra ice time of older hockey but thats a pretty broad generalization

 

[tarheelhockey]

if a player is helped in some ways by being on a better team he is probably also punished in the ice-time category because there is not the same need to play him as much. giving the other layer credit for both being on a worse team and for playing more is very dishonest.

I think throwing out a term like "dishonest" when describing someone's point of view is rather provocative. Just my opinion.

Anyway, I think the term you're looking for is "double credit". Bourque shouldn't get double credit for playing on a bad team AND getting more ice time. He played more because he was on a bad team, just as Lidstrom played less because he was on a good team. They're basically one and the same.

IMO, we can dance in circles around this issue but in the end it washes out. What Bourque lacked in teammates, he made up in ice time. What Lidstrom lacked in ice time, he made up in teammates.

 

[Hobnobs]

so what is your answer to my questions? anecdotes tells me little about what you actually believe he played on average in regular season and playoffs throuhout his career.

He can't answer that because that would put his "Eye test" to a disadvantage.

 

[pluppe]

I think throwing out a term like "dishonest" when describing someone's point of view is rather provocative. Just my opinion.

Anyway, I think the term you're looking for is "double credit". Bourque shouldn't get double credit for playing on a bad team AND getting more ice time. He played more because he was on a bad team, just as Lidstrom played less because he was on a good team. They're basically one and the same.

IMO, we can dance in circles around this issue but in the end it washes out. What Bourque lacked in teammates, he made up in ice time. What Lidstrom lacked in ice time, he made up in teammates.

sorry if it came of as too strong. not my first language and I think "double credit" might be better.


but wouldn´t you agree that Bourque playing more should narrow the offensive dominance edge (while still of course adding career value and partially explaining such things as more frequent injuries.)?

 

[Rhiessan71]

The increased ice-time due to the slower pace would help boost Bourque's offensive numbers, no?

Also, the depth the Red Wings have had has actually hurt Lidstrom's production in some ways. They have usually had two separate powerplay units so Lidstrom usually only got to play half the powerplay. Looking back at the ice-times when the NHL first started logging them Bourque definitely got more PP time than Lidstrom (1:00 to 1:30 more per game). Another factor that would increase his offensive numbers.

I think Tarheel answered this one pretty good and to add to that we're not talking about Coffey here who would rush the puck no matter the score. If the B's were leading, Bourque was hanging back, not taking chances just like Lidstrom.
Those extra minutes were not used to "pad his stats" as it's being implied here. Quite frankly, that's insulting to the way Bourque played the game.
And the last I checked, when teams started going with the 45 second shifts in the early 90, I don't see Bourque's offensive production dropping

so what is your answer to my questions? anecdotes tells me little about what you actually believe he played on average in regular season and playoffs throuhout his career.

I thought I did answer it, I figure it's between 5-10 minutes a game on average in the regular season and closer to 5 in the playoffs.

No you are right in 82 most of the top players in Europe were still in Europe.

I know you mean Wayne (and Mario), but the rest of the competition in 82 and 92 isn't really all that different than 02 in reality although our perception of 02 might be.

Actually, as I mentioned earlier, '02 was simply just a weak year in general. A transition year between young stars on the rise and older ones on the decline. Not helped by the time missed by Forsberg and Lemieux.

Agree. In 02 teams actually knew how to play defense as a unit. Thus making it a lot more difficult.

Sooo...we are once again going to take away from Bourque's offense for playing in a more offensive league while continuing to praise Lidstrom for his defense in a defensive league...gotcha

 

[tarheelhockey]

sorry if it came of as too strong. not my first language and I think "double credit" might be better.

Completely understandable. No offense taken.

but wouldn´t you agree that Bourque playing more should narrow the offensive dominance edge (while still of course adding career value and partially explaining such things as more frequent injuries.)?

I think a good way to look at it would be to say it offsets the argument that Lidstrom's offensive stats are inflated by playing on an offensive powerhouse. One could argue that since both players enjoyed certain benefits from their team situations, their numbers can be taken at face value (after adjusting for era of course).

 

[Rhiessan71]

sorry if it came of as too strong. not my first language and I think "double credit" might be better.


but wouldn´t you agree that Bourque playing more should narrow the offensive dominance edge (while still of course adding career value and partially explaining such things as more frequent injuries.)?

Why? If Bourque is not playing as many minutes then it just means the Bruins have a big lead and Bourque wouldn't be playing offensively in those minutes anyway.
And if Lidstrom is playing more minutes, is he using those extra minutes to take chances, rush the puck or pinch at the blueline? No, he's not.

The difference here is that Bourque would play the same defensive minutes as Lidstrom but also play offensive minutes on top of that.
That not only was Bourque the more dangerous PP QB but was also much more dangerous at even strength.
And then at the end of day, when required, Bourque could play very close to the same kind of stifling defensive game that Lidstrom does.


I mean raw stats or not, at what point does it hit home that Bourque has more assists than Lidstrom has points?

 

[pluppe]

Why? If Bourque is not playing as many minutes then it just means the Bruins have a big lead and Bourque wouldn't be playing offensively in those minutes anyway.
And if Lidstrom is playing more minutes, is he using those extra minutes to take chances, rush the puck or pinch at the blueline? No, he's not.

The difference here is that Bourque would play the same defensive minutes as Lidstrom but also play offensive minutes on top of that.
That not only was Bourque the more dangerous PP QB but was also much more dangerous at even strength.
And then at the end of day, when required, Bourque could play very close to the same kind of stifling defensive game that Lidstrom does.

ok. if we use your numbers this means Lidström scores 75% of what bourque scores per game while playing roughly 78% of what Bourque plays per game (using 7,5 minutes more) in the regular season. this in a much lower scoring era. this while also playing less PP than Bourque. I don´t think this makes sense. doesn´t these numbers suggest that Bourque was not that much more dangerous (pointswise) when on the ice?

 

[jkrx]

Why? If Bourque is not playing as many minutes then it just means the Bruins have a big lead and Bourque wouldn't be playing offensively in those minutes anyway.
And if Lidstrom is playing more minutes, is he using those extra minutes to take chances, rush the puck or pinch at the blueline? No, he's not.

The difference here is that Bourque would play the same defensive minutes as Lidstrom but also play offensive minutes on top of that.
That not only was Bourque the more dangerous PP QB but was also much more dangerous at even strength.
And then at the end of day, when required, Bourque could play very close to the same kind of stifling defensive game that Lidstrom does.


I mean raw stats or not, at what point does it hit home that Bourque has more assists than Lidstrom has points?

and at what point will you understand that Lidström plays in a system era and Bourque did not. No defenceman today is allowed to do things that Orr, Potvin, Bourque did. Coaches just won't allow it. Lidström, Niedermeyer, Keith, Weber, Chara, hell even lessers like Tverdovsky and Visnovsky has shown that they are very good at rushing the puck end-to-end and score. They are all victims of an era that doesnt allow them to do it. Of course to different extent, I'm not saying Tverdovsky is equal to the all time greats.

and before you say that Bouque did it after the high scoring era. Well, would you really want to be the coach that tells Bourque to not play the way he always played?