Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Zil]

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.

Is that why Bourque put up six seasons of 80+ points in the 90s? That's five more 80+ point seasons than Lidstrom has in his whole career.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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

I would have absolutely no problem talking with someone that understands both what exactly adjusted stats are and what I'm trying to convey.

That is why I am most assuredly done talking to you about it.

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.

Hate to break this to you but previous to '97, scoring was not that far off of what it was in the 80's and Bourque buried Lidstrom from 92-96.

 

[canucks4ever]

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.

Exactly, coffey was on pace to cream him offensively in 1988. In 1980 potvin and park missed over half of the season, salming missed 6 games, mark howe spent parts of the season playing left wing.

Bourque himself began winning his norrises when the previous generation defenseman declined and coffey started getting injured.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Is that why Bourque put up six seasons of 80+ points in the 90s? That's five more 80+ point seasons than Lidstrom has in his whole career.

Fun Fact: Lidstrom's only 80-point season came in 2006, when scoring was at a pre-Dead Puck level.

 

[canucks4ever]

Fun Fact: Lidstrom's only 80-point season came in 2006, when scoring was at a pre-Dead Puck level.

Fact: No defenseman scored 80 points during the deadpuck era. That includes the offensive defenseman like leetch, ozolinsh, zubov, gonchar, mccabe.

Fact: From mid 80's to 1994, Suter scored 91 points, Zubov scored 89, Housley scored 97, Larry Murphy scored over 80 multiple times.

 

[Theokritos]

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

Indeed. But Lidström played in that era as well. Compare:

91-92:
Ray Bourque (30/31 yo): 81 points, #27 scorer in the NHL (#3 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidstörm (21/22 yo): 60 points, #75 scorer in the NHL (#9 among Defensemen)

92-93:
Ray Bourque (31/32 yo): 82 points, #49 scorer in the NHL (#5 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidström (22/23 yo): 41 points, #171 scorer in the NHL (#34 among Defensemen)

93-94:
Ray Bourque (32/33 yo): 91 points, #20 scorer in the NHL (#1 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidström (23/24 yo): 56 points, #97 scorer in the NHL (#16 among Defensemen)

94-95:
Ray Bourque (33/34 yo): 43 points, #27 scorer in the NHL (#2 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidström (24/25 yo): 26 points, #122 scorer in the NHL (#20 among Defensemen)

95-96:
Ray Bourque (34/35 yo): 82 points, #29 scorer in the NHL (#2 among Defencemen)
Nicklas Lidström (25/26 yo): 67 points, #53 scorer in the NHL (#6 among Defencemen)

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

I have to agree here and R71's assertion that raw stats are more telling than adjusted stats are only supported by one simple reason.

Raw stats help his specific argument but do not hold the eye test (or the logic test) at all or else he should be prepared to defend all of those great 80's players like Denis Maruk and Bernie Federko (and there are many other 1st line centers not secondary guys anyone can trot out here) getting 100 points in todays NHL and I doubt that anyone is going to believe that argument (except R71 in his raw stat fantasy land).

 

[Hardyvan123]

I would have absolutely no problem talking with someone that understands both what exactly adjusted stats are and what I'm trying to convey.

That is why I am most assuredly done talking to you about it.

Typical, ignore the whole point of my post, but then again that's the way you operate, ignore anything that doesn't help your argument and that you can't defend against as even you seem to recognize when you are wrong about something .

Maybe you could man up once in a while about your adjusted stat mindblock.

I'll buy a lottery ticket as I have a better chance of winning than you getting off the absoluteness of yourself, facts be damned.

The gap you are trying to portray here it amazes me that Lidstrom is even top ten in your rankings and you only have him 2 spots lower than Bourque as I recall, why all the anger?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Indeed. But Lidström played in that era as well. Compare:

91-92:
Ray Bourque (30/31 yo): 81 points, #27 scorer in the NHL (#3 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidstörm (21/22 yo): 60 points, #75 scorer in the NHL (#9 among Defensemen)

92-93:
Ray Bourque (31/32 yo): 82 points, #49 scorer in the NHL (#5 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidström (22/23 yo): 41 points, #171 scorer in the NHL (#34 among Defensemen)

93-94:
Ray Bourque (32/33 yo): 91 points, #20 scorer in the NHL (#1 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidström (23/24 yo): 56 points, #97 scorer in the NHL (#16 among Defensemen)

94-95:
Ray Bourque (33/34 yo): 43 points, #27 scorer in the NHL (#2 among Defensemen)
Nicklas Lidström (24/25 yo): 26 points, #122 scorer in the NHL (#20 among Defensemen)

95-96:
Ray Bourque (34/35 yo): 82 points, #29 scorer in the NHL (#2 among Defencemen)
Nicklas Lidström (25/26 yo): 67 points, #53 scorer in the NHL (#6 among Defencemen)

Gee, this seems very telling to me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not a mod, but maybe we could tone things down a bit?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I'm not a mod, but maybe we could tone things down a bit?

I plead guilty, after reading my posts not sure if my sarcasm or frustration came through more but it's awfully hard to ignore those that willfully ignore serious comments and throw out some really inaccurate facts, or opinions of those facts.

I'll try to make an effort though as the thread has reached new lows.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Gee, this seems very telling to me.

Bourque finished ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting '92-96. Lidstrom finished ahead of him '97-'01. Early 30s Bourque was better than early 20s Lidstrom. Late 20s Lidstrom was better than late 30s Bourque.

 

[SChan*]

Bourque finished ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting '92-96. Lidstrom finished ahead of him '97-'01. Early 30s Bourque was better than early 20s Lidstrom. Late 20s Lidstrom was better than late 30s Bourque.

This.

Lidstrom became better after 30, as a lot of dmen find their stride then.

also i think it is hilarious that this section focus so much on the offense side between bourque and lidstrom like it is the only thing that counts, then you have the same forum blasting offensive dmen like mike green and erik karlsson and calling them forwards.

hypocrisy at its finest.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Fact: No defenseman scored 80 points during the deadpuck era. That includes the offensive defenseman like leetch, ozolinsh, zubov, gonchar, mccabe.

Technically correct but Leetch did put up 79 points in 00/01 which was the highest by any D-man during the DPE ('98-'04).
And on a pretty lousy, over the hill Rags team to boot.
He also led his team in scoring that year for the second time in his career, which is another rare group that Lidstrom does not belong to.

 

[alanschu]

Technically correct but Leetch did put up 79 points in 00/01 which was the highest by any D-man during the DPE ('98-'04).
And on a pretty lousy, over the hill Rags team to boot.
He also led his team in scoring that year for the second time in his career, which is another rare group that Lidstrom does not belong to.

It's also a group that Dick Tarnstrom belongs to.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This.

Lidstrom became better after 30, as a lot of dmen find their stride then.

also i think it is hilarious that this section focus so much on the offense side between bourque and lidstrom like it is the only thing that counts, then you have the same forum blasting offensive dmen like mike green and erik karlsson and calling them forwards.

hypocrisy at its finest.

It's not just the offense though.
Bourque came into the league at 18 and was an All-Star, Calder winning rookie by his 19th B-day.
Bourque has 3 seasons on Lidstrom before he even played a single NHL game and by the time Lidstrom hit his stride at 27, Bourque by the same age already had 8 All-star nods, multiple Norris finishes and an actual Norris.

EVEN if you ridiculously count Lidstrom last couple of seasons as part of his peak, that's 97/98 - 10/11 or 13 years.
Even being conservative with Bourque's peak, we're talking 81/82 - 95/96 or 16 freakin years.
I even stacked the deck for Lidstrom in that comparison and he's still 3 full years behind.

Offense is only part of it. Bourque was better, better sooner and better longer.

Everyone keeps bringing up 36 and older, that's 3-4 years where Lidstrom was better than Bourque. What about 18-27, that 10 years where Bourque is better than Lidstrom.

Like Tarheel suggested earlier, lets just do a year to year comparision and put this baby to bed in a real hurry.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It's also a group that Dick Tarnstrom belongs to.

Naw, I said D-men that have led their team in scoring more than once.
Either way Lidstrom isn't in either group.

To be fair though, Coffey isn't in either group as well.

 

[alanschu]

Naw, I said D-men that have led their team in scoring more than once.
Either way Lidstrom isn't in either group.

To be fair though, Coffey isn't in either group as well.

Whoops my bad.

Which defensemen have? Is it more a product of just being on a poor team? Orr not withstanding of course.

 

[Syckle78]

Naw, I said D-men that have led their team in scoring more than once.
Either way Lidstrom isn't in either group.

To be fair though, Coffey isn't in either group as well.

Just want to jump in quickly and say this. Had Lidstrom led his team in scoring he would have had to have an all time great season offensively rivaling any other offensive season by a defenseman. How could he possibly be expected to lead a team in scoring from the blue line that has had the depth and offensive talent the Wings have had? I don't think it is fair to use that as an argument. That is a circumstancial accomplishment.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Whoops my bad.

Which defensemen have? Is it more a product of just being on a poor team? Orr not withstanding of course.

Off the top of my head, Orr, Bourque and Leetch of course. Denis Potvin did it 3 or 4 times I think.
I'll have to look further tomorrow at some point.

And no it's not about being on a poor team or a good team, it's about the player.
Potvin led his team in scoring on a 106 point Islanders team in 76/77. Trottier was there but no Bossy yet.
Bourque was never on what you would call a poor team until the late 90's but then again some of those average Bruin teams were prolly poor teams without Bouruqe and the good teams were only average without him.
At least that's what the on-ice/off-ice stats show.
Bourque's teams scored 137 goals for every 100 goals against when he was on the ice and they only scored 96 goals for every 100 allowed when he wasn't on the ice.
on-1.37, off-0.96

I haven't seen an updated listing for Lidstrom for the last two years but for his first 18 his on is 1.43 and his off is 1.25.

Obviously Bourque had a much greater impact on his team that Lidstrom has on his.

And neither of them or anyone else for that matter even hold a candle to #4
on-2.18, off-1.10 which is just ridiculous!

 

[SChan*]

Off the top of my head, Orr, Bourque and Leetch of course. Denis Potvin did it 3 or 4 times I think.
I'll have to look further tomorrow at some point.

And no it's not about being on a poor team or a good team, it's about the player.
Potvin led his team in scoring on a 106 point Islanders team in 76/77. Trottier was there but no Bossy yet.
Bourque was never on what you would call a poor team until the late 90's but then again some of those average Bruin teams were prolly poor teams without Bouruqe and the good teams were only average without him.
At least that's what the on-ice/off-ice stats show.
Bourque's teams scored 137 goals for every 100 goals against when he was on the ice and they only scored 96 goals for every 100 allowed when he wasn't on the ice.
on-1.37, off-0.96

I haven't seen an updated listing for Lidstrom for the last two years but for his first 18 his on is 1.43 and his off is 1.25.

Obviously Bourque had a much greater impact on his team that Lidstrom has on his.

And neither of them or anyone else for that matter even hold a candle to #4
on-2.18, off-1.10 which is just ridiculous!

Lidstrom was more clutch and a winner than Bourque was.

Lidstrom has a gold medal in olympics where he scored the game winner in the final. Bourque on the other hand totally stunk on the starstruck 1998 canadian olympic team. (Canada later won in 2002 when bourque retired) And lets not talk about how solid lidstrom was in his 4 stanley cup wins.

Intangibles my friend.

 

[nudie]

Lidstrom was more clutch and a winner than Bourque was.

Lidstrom has a gold medal in olympics where he scored the game winner in the final. Bourque on the other hand totally stunk on the starstruck 1998 canadian olympic team. (Canada later won in 2002 when bourque retired) And lets not talk about how solid lidstrom was in his 4 stanley cup wins.

Intangibles my friend.

Lidstrom have often been criticized when playing for the National team, he was seldom at the level everyone knew he could play on. But yes he did score the GWG in OG' 06.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom was more clutch and a winner than Bourque was.

Lidstrom has a gold medal in olympics where he scored the game winner in the final. Bourque on the other hand totally stunk on the starstruck 1998 canadian olympic team. (Canada later won in 2002 when bourque retired) And lets not talk about how solid lidstrom was in his 4 stanley cup wins.

Intangibles my friend.

Yeah...lets just forget about that thing we had before professional athletes were allowed to go to the Olympics called the Canada and World Cup.
And as horrible as Canada finished by our standards in 1998, it was still ahead of Lidstrom and the Swedes.
We lost to Team Hasek just like everyone else did.

Oh and hey Niedermayer has 4 Cups and TWO gold medals...intangibles my friend

 

[danincanada]

It's not just the offense though.
Bourque came into the league at 18 and was an All-Star, Calder winning rookie by his 19th B-day.
Bourque has 3 seasons on Lidstrom before he even played a single NHL game and by the time Lidstrom hit his stride at 27, Bourque by the same age already had 8 All-star nods, multiple Norris finishes and an actual Norris.

EVEN if you ridiculously count Lidstrom last couple of seasons as part of his peak, that's 97/98 - 10/11 or 13 years.
Even being conservative with Bourque's peak, we're talking 81/82 - 95/96 or 16 freakin years.
I even stacked the deck for Lidstrom in that comparison and he's still 3 full years behind.

Offense is only part of it. Bourque was better, better sooner and better longer.

Everyone keeps bringing up 36 and older, that's 3-4 years where Lidstrom was better than Bourque. What about 18-27, that 10 years where Bourque is better than Lidstrom.

Like Tarheel suggested earlier, lets just do a year to year comparision and put this baby to bed in a real hurry.

If this all means so much to you in this debate then I really hope you don't have Harvey over Bourque then because that would just be two-faced and logically inconsistent.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If this all means so much to you in this debate then I really hope you don't have Harvey over Bourque then because that would just be two-faced and logically inconsistent.

There's a lot more to it with Harvey than just stats, Norris's and Cups.

He is the pioneer of the modern day D-man.
He wrote the book that Lidstrom and every other D-man for the last 40 years has been trained by.

That gets juuuuuust a little bit of credit.