Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd say arbitrarily giving Lidstrom credit for both inventing and mastering a common play is bending over backwards. Particularly when that involves disregarding how it's common league wide and that yes, other players are good at it too.

I'll change my tune if there's credible evidence that he was the first to introduce it.

Who is giving him credit for inventing the play? I am giving him credit for mastering it because he did. But yes, I do remember him being one of the first (or the first) to use the play regularly after the last lockout. With shot-blocking at an all-time high, it has become much more popular.

The credible evidence is watching Red Wings games.

 

[Killion]

...it's a common play. As for how frequently it works leaguewide, I don't know and neither do you.

Ya, it surely is that. Plus, players pick up on the idiosyncrasies of their home arenas' boards and through trades & during pre-game practices look for eccentricities in the boards in all of the buildings in which they play. Before the massive rise in new construction & cookie cutter sameness, the older buildings like Montreals Forum, the Garden in Boston etc all had "sweet spots" behind the net; a weird angle in the corner where if the puck hit it the rebound would ricochet back out in a weird trajectory etc. Youd look for that stuff. Try & take advantage of the buildings eccentricities. Cheat.

 

[Rhiessan71]

*Update for Hardy*

I went and found the thread in question for you because I like doing research.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=39214669#post39214669

All credit to Tarheel for finding and presenting it all in the first place.

After the 1994 upset by the Sharks, Wings beat writer Cynthia Lambert wrote:

Quote:
Nicklas Lidstrom : Does Lidstrom provide enough offensively and with stick checks to prevent the Wings from using him as prime trade bait in an attempt to get that top-of-the-line defenseman? Lidstrom is talented, but does not have the ability to carry a team with his talent or dominate, and that's what the Wings need more of.

After Lidstrom got torched in the Wings-Avs series of 1996, only a year before his breakout, this is what Red Wings beat writer John Niyo had to say in his post-season breakdown:

Quote:
Nicklas Lidstrom : The first-year All-Star was, at times, awful in the playoffs, particularly against Colorado. The pairing of Lidstrom and Coffey does nothing defensively. He has learned plenty of tricks from Fetisov and Coffey (particularly on the power play) and now needs to establish himself as a leader, in addition to shoring up the play in his own end. He and Konstantinov are the two closest things to an untouchable on defense for Detroit.

Detroit writer Mitch Albom chipped in:

Quote:
So they followed the playoff textbook, went with muscle over finesse, and in the end, the Wings did indeed do themselves in. Who has to answer for this? Certainly Scotty Bowman, who seems to devise wonderful finesse teams that can't tough it out to the finish line. Certainly Fedorov, who should study guys like Sakic, and realize that Cups mean more than trophies. Certainly Keith Primeau, who was in a terrible slump, and Slava Fetisov, who often specialized in turnovers, and Paul Coffey and Nicklas Lidstrom , who are wonderful offensive threats, but often seem to be defensive liabilities.

...you were saying Hardy?

Clearly, that while Lidstrom is being recognized as having a lot of potential, he IS NOT the player then that he would become and still had a lot to work on first.

Revisionism....the door is that way----->

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yes, the Hart season was the 1 season I was talking about. Okay, so pretend Pronger doesn't exist. Bourque is still miles behind the Norris finalist in 3/4 seasons, despite the fact that as an older player he should have been getting some "reputation votes." He was still a very good defenseman, but he was not usually talked about in the same way as young Pronger, Lidstrom, or Blake, or older MacInnis or Stevens. That's fine - neither was Chelios. And yes, I remember the late 90s well. Bourque shocked people by how well he played in 2000-01.

Reputation votes only really come into play when there aren't four or five blatantly obvious options available to the voters. Like, say, when Bourque received a 1st Team nod in 2001 when three of the best defensemen were on the shelf for 31 (Pronger - 47 points in 51 games), 15 (Blake - 59 points in 67 games), and 23 games (54 points in 59 games) respectively. A "very good defenseman" wasn't guaranteed a All-Star selection in 1998 or 2000. In some years, they pretty much are. And I happen to think that 2011 was one of those years - and not just for defensemen (Corey Perry, Martin St. Louis, Daniel Sedin... are any of them Lemieux or Jagr?). Not all All-Star selections are created equal.


As for the boards segue, Lidstrom mastered the bounce off of the Joe Louis Arena.

 

[tarheelhockey]

And anyone saying that Coffey and Lidstrom were equals defensively at any time quite simply must have been on some pretty good drugs. I have never seen any such comments and they certainly were not related to how the 2 guys played during Lidstrom's 1st 5 years. Man and you talk about me trying to revise history.

Detroit writers (and heavy drug abusers, apparently) Mitch Albom and John Niyo:

Nicklas Lidstrom : The first-year All-Star was, at times, awful in the playoffs, particularly against Colorado. The pairing of Lidstrom and Coffey does nothing defensively. He has learned plenty of tricks from Fetisov and Coffey (particularly on the power play) and now needs to establish himself as a leader, in addition to shoring up the play in his own end.

So they followed the playoff textbook, went with muscle over finesse, and in the end, the Wings did indeed do themselves in. Who has to answer for this? [other teammates] ... and Paul Coffey and Nicklas Lidstrom , who are wonderful offensive threats, but often seem to be defensive liabilities.

That was written in 1996. Lidstrom was 25 years old.

edit: beat me to it!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Reputation votes only really come into play when there aren't four or five blatantly obvious options available to the voters. Like, say, when Bourque received a 1st Team nod in 2001 when three of the best defensemen were on the shelf for 31 (Pronger - 47 points in 51 games), 15 (Blake - 59 points in 67 games), and 23 games (54 points in 59 games) respectively. A "very good defenseman" wasn't guaranteed a All-Star selection in 1998 or 2000. In some years, they pretty much are. And I happen to think that 2011 was one of those years - and not just for defensemen (Corey Perry, Martin St. Louis, Daniel Sedin... are any of them Lemieux or Jagr?). Not all All-Star selections are created equal.


As for the boards segue, Lidstrom mastered the bounce off of the Joe Louis Arena.

I agree that the 2011 All Stars were quite weak (outside of Tim Thomas in goal). But I don't think they are weak enough to call the guy voted best defenseman in the league "no longer elite."

Anyway, this has been talked to death.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Detroit writers (and heavy drug abusers, apparently) Mitch Albom and John Niyo:





That was written in 1996. Lidstrom was 25 years old.

Nothing there says that Lidstrom was as bad as Coffey (or the other way around). It just says that the pairing wasn't very good.

 

[Killion]

I am giving him credit for mastering it because he did.

Lids is crafty. No question. Id bet you paper money he's prolly gone over every inch of the end boards in all of the other buildings with a Carpenters Square, marking the sweet spots with irremovable indelible ink. Little targets that only he knows exist...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lids is crafty. No question. Id bet you paper money he's prolly gone over every inch of the end boards in all of the other buildings with a Carpenters Square, marking the sweet spots with irremovable indelible ink. Little targets that only he knows exist...

Basically. I mean, is it that hard to believe that a player whose best attribute is his hockey sense went out of his way to master tricky plays?

I've never seen anyone as good at sending the puck bouncing unpredictably towards goal from the neutral zone than Lidstrom, that's for sure.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Basically. I mean, is it that hard to believe that a player whose best attribute is his hockey sense went out of his way to master tricky plays?

Markov does the exact same thing in Montreal and has for years.
And it all came from a couple of guys that played in the 50's named Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay

I've never seen anyone as good at sending the puck bouncing unpredictably towards goal from the neutral zone than Lidstrom, that's for sure.

Obviously, you didn't see much of Peter Stastny then, he was absolutely famous for doing it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Who is giving him credit for inventing the play?

That was the tone of Redwingsfan84's original post on the topic, calling Lidstrom a "genius" and "the smartest dman ever" for making a common play. It's a neat trick, sure, but not unique and a loooooooong way from genius.

This sort of thing just reminds me so much of the late-career Scott Niedermayer hype. Best leader EVER. Biggest winner EVER. Top-10 all time! Just ignore those years that don't fit the narrative...

The credible evidence is watching Red Wings games.

I hope that was supposed to be a sarcasm smiley. Half the problem here is that a large number of HF users, and hockey fans in general, have grown up watching Lidstrom and don't seem to believe that a higher ceiling exists for what a defenseman can be.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Nothing there says that Lidstrom was as bad as Coffey (or the other way around). It just says that the pairing wasn't very good.

The second article calls them both defensive liabilities. Not as a pairing, but as individuals.

I don't believe that Lidstrom was a bad defensive player at the time. But there is some whitewashing going on around here. He certainly did have warts, and that is the primary reason he didn't get All Star recognition for another year.

Obviously, you didn't see much of Peter Stastny then, he was absolutely famous for doing it.

I distinctly remember Bourque scoring on a slap shot from behind his own blue line that beat the goalie cleanly. Just like shots off the boards, it's awfully easy to arbitrarily declare Lidstrom a pioneer and champion of things that other great players could do as well or better.

Edit: here it is



160-foot bouncer right past the goalie, and 100% intentional. How is Lidstrom's bouncer demonstrably better?

 

[Hardyvan123]

How many goals are scored like that per year?
Lids attempts it usually several times per game and I rarely see other teams attempt to do it at his frequency and when they do it is hardly ever met with this same possibilities of success.

I pray he wins the Norris this year (obv. would have to pick up the pace) just so this place can have a meltdown. P-A-N-D-E-M-O-D-I-U-M.
BTW that tying goal helped the wings get their 16th straight at home.

I'm not sure that he would have to pick the pace up that much.

Many voters vote the Norris based on reputation and they probably would have Lidstrom, Chara and Weber as their top 3 guys right now for better or worse.

Lidstrom is plus 23 and voters love stats like that. That and he is only 9 points behind Weber at this point.

Karlsson has no chance of winning it, Coffey didn't win it with 126 points although 121 the next year did it for him.

 

[Killion]

Basically. I mean, is it that hard to believe that a player whose best attribute is his hockey sense went out of his way to master tricky plays?.

No, not at all. He's obviously an extremely intelligent player & student of the game. He uses his head when he takes a guy out of play, when he's on the rush. The puck might get past him but the player wont & rather than put him through the boards or even knock him down he'll just "guide him into harmless pastures". Much like Allan Stanley, Tim Horton or a Bob Baun used to do with the Leafs. Playing with the puck ala tennis (as per your bouncing puck exmple that I edited out)) is always nifty and he's one of the few practitioners of the craft we still see using tools like that which is a bit of a shame. Hopefully a new crop, or at least a few defencemen will follow in his footsteps, as he's followed in those before him through the preceding decades.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Still not sure what this has to do with anything? All I said was that Weber's first 5 years are comparable to Lidstrom's first 5 and that Bourque's first 5 years dwarf Lidstrom's.
Those are my points and they remain un-countered.

As far as you never seeing the comments and articles written by the Wings very own reporters...apparently you only "see" what you want to see.
They were all presented in detail in a previous Lidstrom related thread. One that I am 100% sure you participated in
So if you didn't "see" them, it's because you didn't want to.

You are deliberately downplaying Nik's 1st 5 years, you know the one where he placed 11th in total points scored, despite taking a lesser offensive role from season 2-5 with the addition of Coffey to Detroit, and was 2nd in plus/minus during that time as well.

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

5 of those 10 guys ahead of him are in peak/prime modes of their careers and are legit top 20-25 Dmen of all freaking time. The others simply didn't have the defensive chops that Lidstrom did even in his 1st 5 years.

Here it is once again go have an actual look and think about stuff before you spout off and can't back it up.

Perhaps there were games and small stretches where Lidstrom wasn't the greatest in the league defensively but honestly which of those 5 seasons are you going to tell us that Coffey was better than Lidstrom defensively?

 

[Rhiessan71]

You are deliberately downplaying Nik's 1st 5 years, you know the one where he placed 11th in total points scored, despite taking a lesser offensive role from season 2-5 with the addition of Coffey to Detroit, and was 2nd in plus/minus during that time as well.

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

5 of those 10 guys ahead of him are in peak/prime modes of their careers and are legit top 20-25 Dmen of all freaking time. The others simply didn't have the defensive chops that Lidstrom did even in his 1st 5 years.

Here it is once again go have an actual look and think about stuff before you spout off and can't back it up.

Perhaps there were games and small stretches where Lidstrom wasn't the greatest in the league defensively but honestly which of those 5 seasons are you going to tell us that Coffey was better than Lidstrom defensively?

I DID back it up, you are simply choosing to ignore it and continue with your revisionist viewpoint

 

[Hardyvan123]

*Update for Hardy*

I went and found the thread in question for you because I like doing research.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=39214669#post39214669

All credit to Tarheel for finding and presenting it all in the first place.




...you were saying Hardy?

Clearly, that while Lidstrom is being recognized as having a lot of potential, he IS NOT the player then that he would become and still had a lot to work on first.

Revisionism....the door is that way----->

Funny all 3 of those examples are talking about short stretches, like a playoff series. As for the final 2 quotes I guess Lidstrom gets to carry the blame for not being able to cover for Coffey who never seemed interested in playing defense in his career.

As for the 94 playoffs, I doubt any Dman in history could have changed the fortunes of the team .863 save % that year against the upstart San Jose team.

All 3 of those quotes are coming off playoff losses were emotion runs high and beat writers are writing's on deadlines and looking for scapegoats and are not talking about entire seasons.

It's kind of like the way AO gets treated with Washington's under achieving in the playoffs, sure he is the leader of that team and has to carry some of the blame but he actually has been an excellent playoff performer.

I'll ask tarheelhockey the same question as you R71, name the season where Coffey is better than Lidstrom defensively?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Funny all 3 of those examples are talking about short stretches, like a playoff series. As for the final 2 quotes I guess Lidstrom gets to carry the blame for not being able to cover for Coffey who never seemed interested in playing defense in his career.

As for the 94 playoffs, I doubt any Dman in history could have changed the fortunes of the team .863 save % that year against the upstart San Jose team.

All 3 of those quotes are coming off playoff losses were emotion runs high and beat writers are writing's on deadlines and looking for scapegoats and are not talking about entire seasons.

It's kind of like the way AO gets treated with Washington's under achieving in the playoffs, sure he is the leader of that team and has to carry some of the blame but he actually has been an excellent playoff performer.

Keep revising and making excuses as you go, you're on a roll

I'll ask tarheelhockey the same question as you R71, name the season where Coffey is better than Lidstrom defensively?

Where did either Tarheel or myself say that Coffey was better defensively than Lidstrom?
BOTH of us simply made reference to the article where they are mentioned in the same breath as being defensively suspect.

I have made reference to this very quote before and as I said then, I'll say again...I do not believe that Lidstrom was as bad defensively as is being made out. At least not on the same level as Coffey.
HOWEVER, there must of been some basis in the first place for the exaggeration to exist.
Of that, there is no question in my mind.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I DID back it up, you are simply choosing to ignore it and continue with your revisionist viewpoint

You backed it up with a 7 game series response and didn't name the season where Coffey was better defensively than Lidstrom.

I guess that if you think that's evidence then I can see how and why you can under rate Lidstrom's 1st 5 seasons.

My bet is that you can't make a realistic argument of Coffey ever having a season better defensively than Lidstrom, never mind the same time period that they played together in the NHL.

So skip the silly revisionist comments and either directly answer the question and make a decent plausible, argument or just be your regular old self, I'm pretty sure a fair number of guys are getting a kick out of it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You backed it up with a 7 game series response and didn't name the season where Coffey was better defensively than Lidstrom.

I guess that if you think that's evidence then I can see how and why you can under rate Lidstrom's 1st 5 seasons.

My bet is that you can't make a realistic argument of Coffey ever having a season better defensively than Lidstrom, never mind the same time period that they played together in the NHL.

So skip the silly revisionist comments and either directly answer the question and make a decent plausible, argument or just be your regular old self, I'm pretty sure a fair number of guys are getting a kick out of it.

The sooner you figure out that no one said Coffey was better defensively than Lidstrom, the sooner the "kicks" can really start.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Weber is on par, Leetch was better, MacInnis was better, Potvin was better, Coffey was better, Chelios was better, Salming was better, Konstantinov was better, Gary Suter was better, Scott Stevens was better.
You're not making this very tough to be honest. It's really not that hard to find guys that were better than Lidstrom prior to their 27th B-days.



All these people you are talking about that saw Lidstrom back then ALL had Konstantinov ranked much higher and ALL the print articles from those very same people talked of Lidstrom in the same breath as Coffey for defensive capabilities.
So NO, that is NOT what they saw of Lidstrom back then, that is pure and utter revisionism!

Against 99.99% of other players, Lidstrom's slow development doesn't matter because he more than makes up for it against them.
Unfortunately, Bourque is part of that .01% where those years DO matter and that my friend is the name of the thread

Once again it's being implied by you that Coffey and Lidstrom were on the same level defensively but technically those 2 of those 3 articles do talk about them as a pairing for a 7 game playoff series.

although technically I don't think 3 articles includes all those whose saw them as you are directly saying.

So if you think those 3 articles are somewhat indicative that Coffey and Lidstrom were equally awful defensively please let us know or otherwise we can carry on here and remember history the way it actually was.

Lidstrom was a might fine Dman in his 1st 5 years, his competition in those 5 years was extremely top elite level as indicated by my previous link.

And compared to those top elite guys he looks pretty dammed good as well, he played a lot in all situations in Detroit and arguably was their best 2 way Dman in his 1st 5 years in the league.

 

[Redwingsfan84]

Tarheel, I've watched Lidstroms career and he is easily one of the most intelligent players to ever lace them up and if you want to deny that that is fine but the quotes and statements about it are there.

I remember when Bourque scored that far goal. He did it more than once i I recollect correctly. Lidstrom scored goals from centre ice during the playoffs when it really mattered? BTW did Bourque ever score such a goal that helped rally a team to win a cup? I know a certain swede genius did.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Once again it's being implied by you that Coffey and Lidstrom were on the same level defensively but technically those 2 of those 3 articles do talk about them as a pairing for a 7 game playoff series.

although technically I don't think 3 articles includes all those whose saw them as you are directly saying.

So if you think those 3 articles are somewhat indicative that Coffey and Lidstrom were equally awful defensively please let us know or otherwise we can carry on here and remember history the way it actually was.

Lidstrom was a might fine Dman in his 1st 5 years, his competition in those 5 years was extremely top elite level as indicated by my previous link.

And compared to those top elite guys he looks pretty dammed good as well, he played a lot in all situations in Detroit and arguably was their best 2 way Dman in his 1st 5 years in the league.

Try to keep up eh.
YOU said that Lidstrom was A LOT better than he actually was and YOU used the notion that people who saw him would agree.

I then provided you with actual quotes from "people who saw him" and they seem to have a different story.

The "people who saw him" referenced him and Coffey together for suspect defense, not I and not Tarheel.

Your attempt at revising history failed and your premise (Those who saw him) for that revision was squashed.
Don't get all pissy with me for providing exactly what you asked me to.

Now, the way this works is that it's now your turn to go find some first hand accounts that dispute the ones Tarheel provided.
I'll happily continue this debate when and if you do so.

As always, been a pleasure Hardy

 

[Hardyvan123]

Try to keep up eh.
YOU said that Lidstrom was A LOT better than he actually was and YOU used the notion that people who saw him would agree.

I then provided you with actual quotes from "people who saw him" and they seem to have a different story.

The "people who saw him" referenced him and Coffey together for suspect defense, not I and not Tarheel.

Your attempt at revising history failed and your premise (Those who saw him) for that revision was squashed.
Don't get all pissy with me for providing exactly what you asked me to.

Now, the way this works is that it's now your turn to go find some first hand accounts that dispute the ones Tarheel provided.
I'll happily continue this debate when and if you do so

Once again I asked for a whole season not a 7 game playoff stretch and you replied that "ALL the print articles from those very same people talked of Lidstrom in the same breath as Coffey for defensive capabilities." Just that's it's clear that's your quote.

And for the record in neither of those articles does it directly say that Lidstrom and Coffey are equally defensively inept.

We all know that Coffey wasn't very good defensively even at the best of times and I'm pretty sure that if any of those reporters were asked if on the whole who was better defensively Coffey or Lidstrom, that they wouldn't have skipped a beat and replied Lidstrom, unless they were were talking about one particular play, game or maybe even a series but there is no way anyone makes a credible argument that Coffey was better in any season they played in the NHL together in was better defensively than Lidstrom.

You certainly are backing away from your earlier inference on the matter.

 

[Reds4Life]

..
Cynthia Lambert
..

LMAO.

Do you even know who she is?