Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[revolverjgw]

1) Lidstrom has 2 more Norrises

Oh right, sorry (I guess that shows how much stock I put in that last one, my mind froze on 6 Norris'). My point still stands but I choked there

2) if you're going to play the "his last Norris was based on reputation/wasn't deserved,

A) there's a good case Lidstrom actually "deserved" the 1998 and 2009 Norrises and

Fair points, yeah, but of course you can make the same argument for Bourque. I think his first came way too late. I'm just here to hate on Norris counting though, I shouldn't have snarkily tried to open that can of worms

B) Why don't we ever hear anything about Bourque's "reputation" 1st Team All Star in 2001?

Eh, I think he was worthy there. Way more offense than Stevens, Blake's D was always overrated because he's big and crushed people with his butt, Leetch was just alright defensively... MacInnis and Pronger were definitely better but didn't play enough games so he was a worthy default rather than a legit top-2 d-man.

I haven't read the whole thread, so this has probably been mentioned, but I've always viewed Bourque as a stat collector, Lidstrom as a winner.

Bourque carried teams to the finals with nowhere near as much as support as Lidstrom, but he was up against powerhouses that were a lot better than the 97 Flyers, 98 Capitals, and 02 Canes, so he didn't win, but he did his part. You couldn't have gotten a better result from those Bruins with any other d-man. As soon as he got on a stacked team, he won. That's hockey, it's a team game. Winners can't win jack without the right situation.

 

[SChan*]

Oh right, sorry (I guess that shows how much stock I put in that last one, my mind froze on 6 Norris'). My point still stands but I choked there



Fair points, yeah, but of course you can make the same argument for Bourque. I think his first came way too late. I'm just here to hate on Norris counting though, I shouldn't have snarkily tried to open that can of worms



Eh, I think he was worthy there. Way more offense than Stevens, Blake's D was always overrated because he's big and crushed people with his butt, Leetch was just alright defensively... MacInnis and Pronger were definitely better but didn't play enough games so he was a worthy default rather than a legit top-2 d-man.



Bourque carried teams to the finals with nowhere near as much as support as Lidstrom, but he was up against powerhouses that were a lot better than the 97 Flyers, 98 Capitals, and 02 Canes, so he didn't win, but he did his part. You couldn't have gotten a better result from those Bruins with any other d-man. As soon as he got on a stacked team, he won. That's hockey, it's a team game. Winners can't win jack without the right situation.

unlike Bourque, lidstrom not only carried his team, he won it 4 times.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Sure but Lidstrom holds down a 2nd Team in 2011 too if you want to claim Chara and Weber were better. If you want to stretch it, you can say Vishnovsky, but there is no way the likes of Yandle and Letang were better.

Not sure what you're saying to be honest. I don't hold last year's All-star noms in question and never said that I have.

I do think Weber lost to Lidstrom's reputation last year and I'm by no means alone on that.

Either way, I don't believe either Weber's or Lidstrom's seasons from last year would even qualify in the top 3 for the Norris pre-2002. Nor do I think that Keith's or Lidstrom from '10 would either.

Let me just set the record straight though, I don't hold all of Lidstrom's Norris's in a lesser regard.
4 of them I have no issue with what so ever in fact.
The other 3 though....w-e-a-k.

As I've said before, Bourque has non-Norris winning seasons that are better than most of Lidstrom's winning ones. Lidstrom doesn't have a single non-Norris winning year that comes remotely close to any of Bourque's 5 winning ones.

Maybe Bourque does only have 5 but man did he ever earn 'em.

unlike Bourque, lidstrom not only carried his team, he won it 4 times.

Yeah, he carried Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Larionov, Vernon, Hasek, Murphy, Chelios, Datsyuk, Zetterberg.../endless list.

You really are kidding here right?
Lidstrom rarely even finished top 3 in scoring on his own team most years...carried them...gimme a break, you just completely insulted every name I just mentioned and some I didn't.

 

[revolverjgw]

unlike Bourque, lidstrom not only carried his team, he won it 4 times.

I consider Cup wins, but ultimately they're of minimal importance to me, especially without context. 1000 times more important is how Lidstrom carried himself and how he personally performed in the playoffs, not how many rings he had. And he was awesome in the playoffs.

 

[SChan*]

I consider Cup wins, but ultimately they're of minimal importance to me, especially without context. 1000 times more important is how Lidstrom carried himself and how he personally performed in the playoffs, not how many rings he had. And he was awesome in the playoffs.

yes Lidstrom shut down lindros in the 1997 finals which was a feat itself.

 

[Rhiessan71]

yes Lidstrom shut down lindros in the 1997 finals which was a feat itself.

Not by himself he didn't!!!
He had a ****-ton of help from his forwards.


Every piece of statistical data, adjusted or not, favours Bourque by a fair margin.
Which is most likely the reason why you don't present any and we're stuck listening to you tell us that Lidstrom is better because you say so or simply because his trophy case is fatter.
Like, have you not noticed that everything Tarheel, myself and many others have said, we have backed up with the stats....try it some time, I dare ya.
This isn't the main board, "No, U" posts count for jack around here.

 

[Reds4Life]

Every piece of statistical data, adjusted or not, favours Bourque by a fair margin.

I disagree. While it is apparent that Bourque was better offensively (and not by much), Lidstrom was better defensively (and again, not by much). I personally believe that the difference is caused by situations they have played in. I also believe that if they switched roles, we would see them the other way around (offensive vs. defensive edge). So in the end, for me it comes down to a stalemate and I slightly prefer Lidstrom because a) he's a Red Wings icon b) I prefer defense over offense c) playoff and international success and d) Lidstrom and his style of play have been constants of the best hockey team in the last 15-20 years.

 

[lazerbullet]

I think Lidstrom's competition post-lockout will look a lot better in 10 years. Keith, Weber and even Chara will only continue to build up their legacy.

 

[pluppe]

Not sure what you're saying to be honest. I don't hold last year's All-star noms in question and never said that I have.

I do think Weber lost to Lidstrom's reputation last year and I'm by no means alone on that.

Either way, I don't believe either Weber's or Lidstrom's seasons from last year would even qualify in the top 3 for the Norris pre-2002. Nor do I think that Keith's or Lidstrom from '10 would either.

Let me just set the record straight though, I don't hold all of Lidstrom's Norris's in a lesser regard.
4 of them I have no issue with what so ever in fact.
The other 3 though....w-e-a-k.

As I've said before, Bourque has non-Norris winning seasons that are better than most of Lidstrom's winning ones. Lidstrom doesn't have a single non-Norris winning year that comes remotely close to any of Bourque's 5 winning ones.

Maybe Bourque does only have 5 but man did he ever earn 'em.




Yeah, he carried Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Larionov, Vernon, Hasek, Murphy, Chelios, Datsyuk, Zetterberg.../endless list.

You really are kidding here right?
Lidstrom rarely even finished top 3 in scoring on his own team most years...carried them...gimme a break, you just completely insulted every name I just mentioned and some I didn't.

a bit OT but while I agree that last years achievements was a bit on the weak side but I strongly disagree about Duncan Keith. His 2010 season was really really good and would have challenged many 2002 top 3s. If you also add playoffs I believe his season beats most defencemen seasons.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I disagree. While it is apparent that Bourque was better offensively (and not by much)

Under what metric though?
The only time it's even remotely close is when using adjusted stats at face value and even then if you look at PpG, the gap widens quite a bit.
The raw metric, it's not even close.
The 10 years they played in the league at the same time are not close.
And both Bourques' team and even more importantly, his league finishes dwarf those of Lidstrom's.

So at what point does one realise that the only metric that makes it close is the only one that never actually happened.

Look, I'm not saying that the raw numbers are the best indication between the two but I believe it's closer to them than it is to the adjusted numbers.

Bourque was the significantly better PP QB and he was significantly better at creating offense at even strength. So where does Lidstrom make it close?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Will this madness never end?

Its getting to be like a tea partier versus a PETA member.

 

[Reds4Life]

Under what metric though?
The only time it's even remotely close is when using adjusted stats at face value and even then if you look at PpG, the gap widens quite a bit.
The raw metric, it's not even close.
The 10 years they played in the league at the same time are not close.
And both Bourques' team and even more importantly, his league finishes dwarf those of Lidstrom's.

So at what point does one realise that the only metric that makes it close is the only one that never actually happened.

Look, I'm not saying that the raw numbers are the best indication between the two but I believe it's closer to them than it is to the adjusted numbers.

Bourque was the significantly better PP QB and he was significantly better at creating offense at even strength. So where does Lidstrom make it close?

Bourque was not significantly better PP QB. Where do you get this stuff? They pass and skate about the same. Bourque may have had a harder shot; accuracy is about the same. Lidstrom relies more on deflections in front of the goalie, and he's become master at it. Lidstrom has always been PP QB for Red Wings PP, which has been one of the better ones in the league during Lidstrom tenure.

Of course comparing raw stats is useless, I base my opinion on what I've seen. I think Bourque would outscore Lidstrom, but not by much. "Not even close; significantly etc." are words that should not be used here.

Bourque had to generate more offense by himself because a) the system he played in allowed it and b) he usually did not have great support.
Lidstrom did have great support throughout his career and played in a defense-first system. This is, again, the result of different situations they've been in.

I do not care about stats, awards or accolades. I am a big fan of both players and if I had to pick only one, I would take Lidstrom for the reasons outlined in my previous post. What I absolutely hate, though, is your constant effort to downplay one player to bring the other one up. Significantly, my ass.

 

[overpass]

Bourque was not significantly better PP QB. Where do you get this stuff? They pass and skate about the same. Bourque may have had a harder shot; accuracy is about the same. Lidstrom relies more on deflections in front of the goalie, and he's become master at it. Lidstrom has always been PP QB for Red Wings PP, which has been one of the better ones in the league during Lidstrom tenure.

Bourque was also outstanding at holding the puck in at the blueline. Opposing teams also very rarely scored shorthanded against him. Those often don't show up in the points column but they matter.

Lidstrom is very good at those aspects as well but Bourque was the best I ever saw (90s and later.)

 

[habsjunkie2*]

Bla bla bla...so tell me Hardy, who are we talking about here 99% of the time? The 21-30 place scorers or guys that finished in the top 10-15?

You just do not get that do you??? We are mostly talking about the very top players and outliers 99% of the time and adjusted stats screws them in the butt.

And if you knew a damned thing about numbers in the first place you would realise just how silly you sound mentioning the difference between a 21 and 30 team league.
If anything the 21 team numbers are going to be more skewed than the 30 team numbers because the 30 team is a bigger sample size while a very high scoring team *cough* Gretzky's Oilers* or an extremely low scoring team can skew the results more with only 21 teams.

I've had enough, seriously move on. You don't get it and I'm doubtful you ever will.

I don't know how you can put up with this on a daily basis. He can't seem to grasp the screwing that the outliers get from adjusted numbers. I'm not going to get into it anymore with him. He'll just keep on repeating his misguided opinion, enjoy.

 

[danincanada]

Bourque was not significantly better PP QB. Where do you get this stuff? They pass and skate about the same. Bourque may have had a harder shot; accuracy is about the same. Lidstrom relies more on deflections in front of the goalie, and he's become master at it. Lidstrom has always been PP QB for Red Wings PP, which has been one of the better ones in the league during Lidstrom tenure.

You bring up a good point regarding trying to score from the blue line now compared to the 80's or earlier. With the combination of much better equipped and trained goaltenders and all the "fronting" we see now with shot blocking it's more difficult to score from the blue line. Deflections are needed more and more due to this.

R71 is off his rocker. He's actually convinced himself the NHL and it's players are degenerating over time. Despite the obvious points of players training harder and better with hockey oriented methods, having more countries and people to draw from and more advanced coaching. For instance, drop Shea Weber in the 80's with that point shot and he might score 30 goals. Combine that with his physical and defensive play and I don't know how someone can straight out claim he wouldn't be in the Norris conversation back then. Duncan Keith would be fantastic in any era with his skating and hockey IQ as well. The 70's, 80's and early 90's has been romanticized in his mind and I don't see it changing anytime soon. For some people nothing new will ever be good enough even if it is actually a better product overall now.

 

[danincanada]

Bourque was also outstanding at holding the puck in at the blueline. Opposing teams also very rarely scored shorthanded against him. Those often don't show up in the points column but they matter.

Lidstrom is very good at those aspects as well but Bourque was the best I ever saw (90s and later.)

Lidstrom is the best I've seen at holding the puck in at the blueline. A few games ago he did this twice during one powerplay. Larry Murphy was great at it, too. I recall Murphy being known as the best in the league at this back during his prime.

I think this debate has a lot to do with East/West. People who have watched more Western Conference games and see a lot of Lidstrom would favour him because he blows their minds with his play. People who watched more Eastern Conference games in the past saw more of Bourque and were equally blown away by his play. That's probably why many Habs fans are on the Bourque side while many fans of West teams are on the Lidstrom side.

 

[overpass]

Lidstrom is the best I've seen at holding the puck in at the blueline. A few games ago he did this twice during one powerplay. Larry Murphy was great at it, too. I recall Murphy being known as the best in the league at this back during his prime.

I think this debate has a lot to do with East/West. People who have watched more Western Conference games and see a lot of Lidstrom would favour him because he blows their minds with his play. People who watched more Eastern Conference games in the past saw more of Bourque and were equally blown away by his play. That's probably why many Habs fans are on the Bourque side while many fans of West teams are on the Lidstrom side.

Yeah, Bourque, Lidstrom, and Murphy might be the three best in that area in the last 3 decades.

It's hard to compare when you're talking about players who are the best in the league at what they do.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Bla bla bla...so tell me Hardy, who are we talking about here 99% of the time? The 21-30 place scorers or guys that finished in the top 10-15?

You just do not get that do you??? We are mostly talking about the very top players and outliers 99% of the time and adjusted stats screws them in the butt.

And if you knew a damned thing about numbers in the first place you would realise just how silly you sound mentioning the difference between a 21 and 30 team league.
If anything the 21 team numbers are going to be more skewed than the 30 team numbers because the 30 team is a bigger sample size while a very high scoring team *cough* Gretzky's Oilers* or an extremely low scoring team can skew the results more with only 21 teams.

I've had enough, seriously move on. You don't get it and I'm doubtful you ever will.

Bourque and Lidstrom are hardly outliers in any seasons scoring.

Talk to Dr no about adjusted stats or is your mind that closed off?

Either you are totally ignorant or trolling a top 25 list in a 21 team league and 30 team league is different is one extremely important sense.

In a 30 team league there are 9 teams worth more 1st line minutes available and 9 teams worth more PP minutes to score points as well.

If everything was equal then we would expect a higher number of raw scorers above a certain point (say your top 25) in a 30 team league than a 21 team league.

So as is so often the case your rant and indignant attitude only goes to show how interested you actually are in discussing ideas and viewpoints rather than your lofty "I'm right, your wrong attitude."

Also go ahead and keep moving the targets around, outliers are entirely different than top 25 which is also different than Lidstrom and Bourque on the spectrum.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Reputation?
He got the 1rst team All-star nod in 2001 the same way Lidstrom got some of his Norris's and for the same reason Bourque was only a 2nd team All-star a few times and missed out of some Norris's himself in the early 80's.

Games missed.
Blake, Pronger and MacInnis all missed chunks of that season.

Now, I'll be the first to agree that I would of prolly put Stevens and Leetch ahead of Bourque that year but Ray still holds down a 2nd team all-star nod.
Truth be told though, if Leetch was on a playoff team instead of a pretty lousy, over the hill Ranger's team, Leetch takes a real run at that Norris.

I think we can also add that Bourque was fortunate for some other top Dmen to be injured earlier in his career to clear a path to some all star selections as well, Potvin specifically.

i had an earlier post on it.

 

[tarheelhockey]

At this point I kind of wish we had just done a season-by-season comparison, as it would likely have saved some time by now.

 

[SChan*]

put lidstrom in the 80s high score era and he would match if not surpass bourques offense. It is no coincidence that bourque had his best offensive years during the 80s.

 

[habitue*]

Bourque was more dominant physically.

Lidstrom is the most clever d-men who ever played the game. Doesn't hit, doesn't block shots but always placed at the right spot on the ice, and great to start the offence.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

put lidstrom in the 80s high score era and he would match if not surpass bourques offense. It is no coincidence that bourque had his best offensive years during the 80s.

From a raw points perspective, Bourque's 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th best years were in the 90s.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Not sure what you're saying to be honest. I don't hold last year's All-star noms in question and never said that I have.

I do think Weber lost to Lidstrom's reputation last year and I'm by no means alone on that.

You mean Chara? People can't seem to make up their mind whether Weber or Chara was "robbed" last year. Lidstrom produced more than 20% than both of them, regardless, and he was the top shutdown Dman on his team (and voted in an NHL Players' Poll as 2nd toughest defenseman to play against).

 

[SChan*]

From a raw points perspective, Bourque's 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th best years were in the 90s.

well the half of the 90s were still high scoring.