Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Hardyvan123]

Gee, it sounds so much more ridiculous when you turn it into a giant strawman.

I'm not in any way saying that Coffey taught him to play D. That's ridiculous. He was placed with Coffey because he had offensive talent, and his role was to be the more conservative partner. THAT is where he developed his game.



Nobody said he was a Mike Green.

The Red Wings and the Mario/Jagr Pens were by far the highest-octane teams of the past 20 years. It's easy to forget how much the game has changed since then. Lidstrom was a decent defensive player, but it was his offensive skill that nearly won him the Calder and I'm sorry, but denying that the defense developed over a number of years is just outright revisionism.

Maybe we have different definitions of decent but decent sounds a lot like adequate or average and he was better than that right from the start. He played quite a bit on the PK right from the beginning. I'll have to try and find the Salming quote but he spoke very highly of Nik at the 92 Canada cup which Nik made at age 21.

Sure his defense went from quite or very good to excellent to great over some time but it's not like Bourque was a defensive wizard from day 1 either.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque isnt Orr. He isnt anywhere near Coffey's level offensively. Coffey used to be carrying the puck up himself or skating alongside with the forwards. He would play down low or even behind the net at times. This is why he was so sucky defensively when the play broke up in these situations. I doubt Bourque played like this as much as Coffey did and when Bourque did play like this i bet he got caught up like Coffey did.

As I have said before, playing offensively is not just about rushing the puck. In fact the actual rushing is only a small part of it.
It's knowing when to pinch down the wall, creep into the slot or backdoor, when to hold the line, getting your shot through traffic and when to join the rush.

Bourque was not only a master at all these things, he was THE master of knowing when to do them.

By all means though, don't let my word be enough. Read the sticky with the coaches polls. in '94 for example, Bourque only played 74 games, scored 91 points and is ranked the second best offensive d-man behind Leetch while being voted the best defensive D-man in the league.
Make your own conclusions.

 

[toob]

As I have said before, playing offensively is not just about rushing the puck. In fact the actual rushing is only a small part of it.
It's knowing when to pinch down the wall, creep into the slot or backdoor, when to hold the line, getting your shot through traffic and when to join the rush.

Bourque was not only a master at all these things, he was THE master of knowing when to do them.

Lids could do these things too while playing a defense first game though. Bourque seems to have one big advantage in that he could put the team on his back offensively and rush the puck better than Lidstrom.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lids could do these things too while playing a defense first game though. Bourque seems to have one big advantage in that he could put the team on his back offensively and rush the puck better than Lidstrom.

No Lidstrom couldn't and more importantly he didn't, that's the whole point!

The whole friggin point of playing defense first is that you don't pinch in if they have a player high, you don't attempt to hold the line if there's any whiff of trouble in doing it, you don't even try and get a shot on net if there's even a chance of it being blocked.

Honestly, I wish I could sit you down in a room and make you watch hours and hours of both Bourque and Lidstrom over the years.
You'd figure it real quick.


You have this flawed view of what an offensive D-man is. All you have in your mind is the image Coffey or Housley going end to end and that is far from reality.

 

[toob]

No Lidstrom couldn't and more importantly he didn't, that's the whole point!

The whole friggin point of playing defense first is that you don't pinch in if they have a player high, you don't attempt to hold the line if there's any whiff of trouble in doing it, you don't even try and get a shot on net if there's even a chance of it being blocked.

Honestly, I wish I could sit you down in a room and make you watch hours and hours of both Bourque and Lidstrom over the years.
You'd figure it real quick.


You have this flawed view of what an offensive D-man is. All you have in your mind is Coffey or Housley and that is far from reality.

You dont think Lidstrom held the line and pinched at the right times or even could? Then there isnt much point continuing and we will have to agree to disagree.

Rushing the puck is the quintessential sign of an offensive defenseman by the way. Racking up a lot of points by pinching well and taking point shots is one thing but a guy who carries the puck in and plays down low a lot is clearly at another level of offensive contribution.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You dont think Lidstrom held the line and pinched at the right times or even could? Then there isnt much point continuing and we will have to agree to disagree.

I never said Lidstrom couldn't do it nor did I say he didn't do it.
What I said was that he didn't do it with the frequency or success that Bourque did nor could he have while maintaining as high a defensive level as Bourque did.
That's what I said.

Rushing the puck is the quintessential sign of an offensive defenseman by the way. Racking up a lot of points by pinching well and taking point shots is one thing but a guy who carries the puck in and plays down low a lot is clearly at another level of offensive contribution.

Again, it's PART of it! NOT all of it!

 

[Hardyvan123]

See the difference though and the point you're missing is that even with what you're saying here, Lidstrom played either offensively or defensively and couldn't do both.
When Lidstrom was being aggressive on the offense his defense suffered hugely. When he was playing his uber defense, his offense suffered and was relegated to what he did on the PP and who could take one of his outlet passes and put the puck in the net.

Bourque did both. He could put up more offense than Lidstrom ever could while also maintaining a very high level of defense.

As I've said before, Lidstrom might of been able to come close to or even matching Bourque's offense but he would fallen well below Bourque's defensive level to do it.

Bourque's risk management and ability to control BOTH ends of the ice AT THE SAME TIME is what separates him greatly from Lidstrom.


As for as all the "what ifs" being presented, how about this one...What if Bourque is traded to the Av's in '96 instead of '00?
Who has more cups now and are we even having a debate over the two?


Here's another thing. For the amount of firepower, depth, league finishes and sheer point finishes that Lidstrom's Wings have enjoyed year to year during his career. How does he only have 4 Cups?

How is Bourque diminished for not winning any on what was a predominantly average, sometimes good team for 20 years yet Lidstrom is only able to win 4 on what has been overwhelmingly the best team in the league over the last 20 years?

Well both Orr and shore get a ton less grief fro only winning 2 cups in their smaller leagues.

Detroit has always had questionable goaltending while other teams that have won the Cup during their long regular season run (for which Lidstrom has been there for the whole time) like NJ, col and Dallas all had better goaltending than the wings did and the Avs in the late 90's and early 00's were a powerhouse as well.

Anyways I doubt that even if Lidstrom had 5 or 6 cups that you would rank him any better would you?

I'm not a cup counter per say but having 4 cups from 90 on is an extremely impressive accomplishment as well as how well the Red Wings have done in the regular season.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well both Orr and shore get a ton less grief fro only winning 2 cups in their smaller leagues.

Detroit has always had questionable goaltending while other teams that have won the Cup during their long regular season run (for which Lidstrom has been there for the whole time) like NJ, col and Dallas all had better goaltending than the wings did and the Avs in the late 90's and early 00's were a powerhouse as well.

Anyways I doubt that even if Lidstrom had 5 or 6 cups that you would rank him any better would you?

I'm not a cup counter per say but having 4 cups from 90 on is an extremely impressive accomplishment as well as how well the Red Wings have done in the regular season.

So obviously it's very hard to win the Cup, even while playing on a top team let alone not playing on one.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So obviously it's very hard to win the Cup, even while playing on a top team let alone not playing on one.

This seems to get lost on the Marcel Dionne ranking but I will have more on this when we do the centers.

Yes teams win cups and even Wayne never won a cup outside of Edmonton thanks to Patrick Roy (goalies are the exception to the team rule as they ahve much more of an impact on the outcome of a game than any single position player).

Sure Lidstrom's teams were better than Bourque's but a few teams with less talent than Bourque's have won the Cup as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sure Lidstrom's teams were better than Bourque's but a few teams with less talent than Bourque's have won the Cup as well.

And those "less talented teams than Bourque's" did so vs the Isles, Oilers and Pens dynasties from '80-'92 right?

And please do not even try to pretend that the '86 Habs or the '89 Flames were less talented than Bourque's teams.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And those "less talented teams than Bourque's" did so vs the Isles, Oilers and Pens dynasties from '80-'92 right?

And please do not even try to pretend that the '86 Habs or the '89 Flames were less talented than Bourque's teams.

Well that plays right into your Bourque's team was worse than Lidstrom that you like to pull out when it's convenient.

Funny how you haven't pulled out the competition that Lidstrom had in his 1st 5 years in the league that I have pointed out twice to you already. |Or that other top Dmen were injured and didn't play full seasons in Bourque's early years or his final year in Col.

For 2 guys you ahve ranked really close you sure go out of your way to nitpick any shortcomings Lidstrom has while at the same time you defend any such analysis on bourque.

And you are calling others Lidstrom fanboi's?, maybe it takes one to know one eh?

Personally I have the 2 guys really close and understand why a guy might take Ray over Nik but your obsession about it seems rather odd.

 

[thehangover]

See the difference though and the point you're missing is that even with what you're saying here, Lidstrom played either offensively or defensively and couldn't do both.
When Lidstrom was being aggressive on the offense his defense suffered hugely. When he was playing his uber defense, his offense suffered and was relegated to what he did on the PP and who could take one of his outlet passes and put the puck in the net.

Bourque did both. He could put up more offense than Lidstrom ever could while also maintaining a very high level of defense.

As I've said before, Lidstrom might of been able to come close to or even matching Bourque's offense but he would fallen well below Bourque's defensive level to do it.

Bourque's risk management and ability to control BOTH ends of the ice AT THE SAME TIME is what separates him greatly from Lidstrom.

I adjusted the point totals for both players highest scoring seasons.

Bourque had his best season point wise (adjusted) in the 90-91 and 93-94 seasons. If you adjust Lidstroms 05-06 season to what the league scoring was at the time, he will get 91 points in 90-91 where Bourque scored 94 points, and 86 in 93-94 where Bourque got 91. Not a very big difference.

These are the only seasons in which Bouque got better adjusted point totals than Lidstrom in his best scoring season. If we adjust for Bourque's highest scoring season which was in 82-83, were he got 96, Lidstrom would have gotten 104.

So, I have to disagree with you. Don't you think Lidstrom maintained a very high level of defence that season?

 

[BenchBrawl]

This seems to get lost on the Marcel Dionne ranking but I will have more on this when we do the centers.

Yes teams win cups and even Wayne never won a cup outside of Edmonton thanks to Patrick Roy (goalies are the exception to the team rule as they ahve much more of an impact on the outcome of a game than any single position player).

Sure Lidstrom's teams were better than Bourque's but a few teams with less talent than Bourque's have won the Cup as well.

dionne's production dropped in the playoff

 

[Rhiessan71]

I adjusted the point totals for both players highest scoring seasons.

Bourque had his best season point wise (adjusted) in the 90-91 and 93-94 seasons. If you adjust Lidstroms 05-06 season to what the league scoring was at the time, he will get 91 points in 90-91 where Bourque scored 94 points, and 86 in 93-94 where Bourque got 91. Not a very big difference.

These are the only seasons in which Bouque got better adjusted point totals than Lidstrom in his best scoring season. If we adjust for Bourque's highest scoring season which was in 82-83, were he got 96, Lidstrom would have gotten 104.

So, I have to disagree with you. Don't you think Lidstrom maintained a very high level of defence that season?

Well first of, for 93/94 Bourque did only get 91 points but it was in only 72 games and that's 101 over 80 games.

Second of all you are using Lidstrom very best statisical season repeatedly to go up against multiple Bourque seasons.
How about using their top 5, then their top 10 then their top 15 statisical seasons against each other and see how "insignificant" the gap is.

I'll even do up a chart using only adjusted stats for ya.
Gimme 10 minutes.

 

[Rhiessan71]

All years pro-rated to full seasons.

So despite Lidstrom's overwhelming advantage in team depth, D-partners and overall team strength over the years. Bourque maintained a more than modest statistical advantage.
And after about year 13, only modest goes right out the window.

So we're right back to what I stated in the first place. Bourque has a distinct 4-7 year advantage in head to head years and 2 years that Lidstrom can't even account for on top on that.

 

[hcdt]

I don't know if you've picked up on this yet, but I'm not into counting Cups and awards as the definition of career value. Say the Wings won in 95, 96 and 09. Lids would have, what, 7 Cups I think... yet nothing changed about his game. Yet according to "career value", he's supposed to go up in the rankings?

I will say this, I'd see Lidstrom differently if he'd ever done it all by himself. I'm not convinced he could play his style of game in Bourque's situation, having to take risks as the primary offensive force on his team. And if it's Bourque instead of Lidstrom on the early-90s Wings, I think they are a 3- or 4- year dynasty. There's no way Coffey wins a Norris out from under him, that's for sure.

Future accomplishments wont take away any accomplishments done before. So he had those great years even without winning awards.

Awards are an indication (quite objective) of how good the year has been. If your point of view is unchanged even if Lidstrom would have as much success as i said means you keep Lidstrom and Bourque in different leagues and this is part where we disagree so heavily that its not fruitfull to continue discussions between us.

 

[Hardyvan123]

dionne's production dropped in the playoff

Yes I'm aware that his point production dropped off in the playoffs but at least for most of his career his supporting cast was truly very weak.

In addition he was a small player who wasn't the best body type for the playoffs where the rules were enforced a little differently.

I know other small guys did ok but in almost every single case they were surrounded by much better talent.

Bourque's supporting cast was closer to Lidstrom's than it was to Dionne for the majority of his career.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Awards are an indication (quite objective) of how good the year has been.

Yeah, I agree that we'd be better off walking away from this discussion, rather than get into how strongly I disagree with that point of view.

 

[Roy S]

All years pro-rated to full seasons.

So despite Lidstrom's overwhelming advantage in team depth, D-partners and overall team strength over the years. Bourque maintained a more than modest statistical advantage.
And after about year 13, only modest goes right out the window.

So we're right back to what I stated in the first place. Bourque has a distinct 4-7 year advantage in head to head years and 2 years that Lidstrom can't even account for on top on that.

Why would you pro-rate everything to a full season? Staying healthy is a skill and the players who rarely miss games should be rewarded for their durability because it adds to their value (keeps inferior players out of the lineup and increases their teams chances of winning). Just keep their season totals as is without pro-rating everything to a full season. Lidstrom shouldn't be penalized because he was one of the most durable players in NHL history.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Why would you pro-rate everything to a full season? Staying healthy is a skill and the players who rarely miss games should be rewarded for their durability because it adds to their value (keeps inferior players out of the lineup and increases their teams chances of winning). Just keep their season totals as is without pro-rating everything to a full season. Lidstrom shouldn't be penalized because he was one of the most durable players in NHL history.

Agreed... especially with defensemen whose value on the ice is not just in points.

I'd be more willing to pro-rate games lost to lockouts than injuries.

 

[BraveCanadian]

All years pro-rated to full seasons.

And the reasoning for that was?

Oh, right.

 

[hcdt]

Good self esteem

Yeah, I agree that we'd be better off walking away from this discussion, rather than get into how strongly I disagree with that point of view.

Do you think you are better in making evaluation of a good year?

I know that someone can and always will disagree with some majority votes. As we know last year Lidstrom was not unanimously chosen as best player and i agree that you can discuss weather he was best or not but to say that a Norris winner was not a VERY good player (And i in previous post said only that its an objective indication of a good year) in that year is pure bulls**t.

So you need to consider Lidstrom way inferior to Bourque at the moment for not give any difference weather Lidstrom wins or does not win new awards or shows in other ways elite years to come at this age. Which it self is legendary and will be marveled after some time have passed.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Why would you pro-rate everything to a full season? Staying healthy is a skill and the players who rarely miss games should be rewarded for their durability because it adds to their value (keeps inferior players out of the lineup and increases their teams chances of winning). Just keep their season totals as is without pro-rating everything to a full season. Lidstrom shouldn't be penalized because he was one of the most durable players in NHL history.

Never said he wasn't but how much of that durability comes from the use of much better equipment, playing on better ice, having many times better medical knowledge and treatments and from just plain old luck?
I pro-rated it all because that's what adjusted stats does for the '95 season as it is.
Look, I already used adjusted stats at par which already favours Lidstrom greatly and is unfair to Bourque and he still came out far ahead.
I then left a subjective gap at 4-7 years.
On top of it all, we were talking about offense and even in the years that Bourque missed 13 games or 17 games or even 20 games, he STILL produced more points in those reduced seasons than 1/2 to 2/3's of Lidstrom's 80 games seasons.

Either way, we're talking about production or PpG and that's what the chart shows.

Whine about it, ***** about, scream about it for all I care, it is what it is and no amount of spinning is going to reduce the gap to a level that doesn't still leave Bourque dominating.
That's a fact!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Do you think you are better in making evaluation of a good year?

I know that someone can and always will disagree with some majority votes. As we know last year Lidstrom was not unanimously chosen as best player and i agree that you can discuss weather he was best or not but to say that a Norris winner was not a VERY good player (And i in previous post said only that its an objective indication of a good year) in that year is pure bulls**t.

So you need to consider Lidstrom way inferior to Bourque at the moment for not give any difference weather Lidstrom wins or does not win new awards or shows in other ways elite years to come at this age. Which it self is legendary and will be marveled after some time have passed.

Lidstrom was definitely a very good player or even Elite by Devil's definition of the word in the context of his competition and the league last year but his play from last year would of only been considered good and definitely not elite in relation to 2001 or 1991.
Elite in the context of last year, not elite in context of all-time.
a 2011 Lidstrom can't even shine a 2001 Lidstrom's shoes...ok maybe a little exaggeration there but you get the point.
Just like a 2001 Bourque was still a good player but he (using the same exaggeration) couldn't shine a 1991 Bourque's shoes either.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Do you think you are better in making evaluation of a good year?

I know that someone can and always will disagree with some majority votes. As we know last year Lidstrom was not unanimously chosen as best player and i agree that you can discuss weather he was best or not but to say that a Norris winner was not a VERY good player (And i in previous post said only that its an objective indication of a good year) in that year is pure bulls**t.

So you need to consider Lidstrom way inferior to Bourque at the moment for not give any difference weather Lidstrom wins or does not win new awards or shows in other ways elite years to come at this age. Which it self is legendary and will be marveled after some time have passed.

So, you interpret "agree to disagree" as writing a 3-paragraph retort containing the phrase "pure bulls**t".

This is me, discontinuing the conversation.