Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Dark Shadows]

It is hard to put into words just how different the team was with Bourque on and off the ice. We once glanced at the 1990 Oilers/Bruins finals when someone attempted to say Bourque choked in the finals in one of these arguments, and the numbers were ridiculously good for him compared to the rest of his team.

Yes he was -1 in the series, but it was a team best, and ridiculous considering he was playing 30+ minutes a game in a series where they were outscored 20-8. Throw in the fact that he had a team best 3 goals, 2 assists and made the brilliant pass that resulted in another goal but did not get an assist in their game 3. He factored in to 6 of the Bruins 8 goals in the series.

The rest of the team was getting demolished when he was not on the ice that series. Even more amazing was the Oilers were playing a specific strategy in which Bourque was keyed in on as target #1 and not given the chance to jump in the play. The idea was, Bourque is the only bruin who can really carry the puck, don't let him. Dump it in his corner so he has to retrieve and then rush and bang him. Force him to make outlet passes to players who cannot do much with them, and then backcheck on Bourque as if he were a forward to prevent him from getting into the play.

If Bourque were on the red wings, that strategy would not have worked whatsoever since he would have an abundance of players who actually can carry the puck to make those perfect outlet passes to. The other difference being when off the ice, the rest of the wings team was pretty respectable due to their depth.

 

[Dark Shadows]

But isn't using Lidstrom's on ice / off ice ratio just punishing him for having better teammates?

At various times, Lidstrom's off ice compatibles were the Russian 5 and later Chris Chelios. Bourque and Potvin had nobody close to that. Robinson had Lapointe off ice, but he had Serge Savard as a partner to help his on-ice

I don't think it punishes Lidstrom so much as it points out how ridiculous the people saying "what did Bourque ever lead the bruins to?" are in their logic.

 

[Czech Your Math]

But isn't using Lidstrom's on ice / off ice ratio just punishing him for having better teammates?

At various times, Lidstrom's off ice compatibles were the Russian 5 and later Chris Chelios. Bourque and Potvin had nobody close to that. Robinson had Lapointe off ice, but he had Serge Savard as a partner to help his on-ice

I don't know that it is punishing hiim compared to players like Potvin and Robinson. Robinson has 2/15 seasons below 1.04 from '74 to '88 (one was 1.02) and his ratio is better the two years after Savard left than the last two years Savard was there. Potvin has only 2/15 seasons below 1.05 on/off during his career and his team's r-off is generally at least as strong as that of Lidstrom's team during their primes. Lidstrom's best 15 year stretch still has 7/15 seasons below 1.03.

In Lidstrom's case, wasn't Chelios used at least as much for shutdown purposes as Lidstrom? He certainly wasn't known as an offensive d-man at that stage of his career. That would be in Lidstrom's favor, if anything (it's always claimed that shutdown D are at a disadvantage for this metric). As far as the Russian 5, there were still plenty of other good players on Detroit, and we're not talking about a couple of years earlier in Lidstrom's career, but about several seasons during his prime.

It's really difficult to evaluate defensemen, but I haven't seen any objective metrics that make him stand out in the same way that some other ATG players do.

 

[aemoreira1981]

I only saw Ray Bourque's later career. But based on his point totals right through the end, I will have to say Bourque...after Bobby Orr and Denis Potvin, Bourque is the best offensive-minded D-man ever (Coffey would be next), and Bourque (1612 games) had much longer careers than Potvin (1060) and Orr (657). That trade also seemed to usher in a second wind for Bourque.

Another sign of greatness: His rookie season, Bourque was +52 (he was +528 for his career; Lidstrom was +450). Another reason why the Draft of 1979 is perhaps the best ever in the NHL.

This is not AINEC, however.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's not true though. There are many seasons in which Detroit had as good or better GF/GA ratio at ES without Lidstrom than with him. Players like Potvin and Robinson frequently played on similarly good or better teams and this rarely happened to them. Bourque's team was better at ES with him on the ice than without him, until his last 3 years in Boston.

That's why many are balking that he is placed so highly amongst d-men and/or amongst players of all positions. There are other players with much higher peaks, better primes and similarly long careers. It seems like he's the "easy answer" due to counting trophies and Cups, but it's far from settled in the eyes of many. Of course it depends on what each person values. Those who value consistency, voting (the opinions of others) and count Cups tend to favor Lidstrom. Those who favor peak/prime dominance and don't penalize players like Bourque for being great on mediocre teams tend not to favor Lidstrom so much. It's somewhat bothersome how Lidstrom almost came out of nowhere to become ranked so highly. That's because he was never considered nearly as dominant at his peak and in his prime as many other players. It's apparently not allowed to point out that he played on perpetually stacked teams and that his competition for the Norris hasn't been so strong the past decade as it was in previous years. What's amazing to me is that so many rank him so highly, seemingly without much second thought, as if it's a given.

They played in the 70's when the league was more imbalanced than it was in Lidstroms career.
We all know that Detroit was a better team than Boston but this gets trotted out every time as some sort of negative for Lidstrom.

If only all of the past greats were given the same treatment it would be one thing but they are not.

Same thing goes with Leadership, if one wants to use it at least be equatable across the board, almost every "great leader" played on great teams, apply the standard equally or don't use it.

The bottom line is that Lidstrom is the constant in his teams making the playoffs in each and every season in his career. He also had a major and sometimes leading role in all 6 cup finals.

Bourque played on weaker teams to be sure but it's not like he had no talent either and the gap is overplayed quite a bit sometimes.

Maybe it's the Lidstrom affect and Tarheel mentioned the "untouchable 3" in Orr, Harvey and Bourque. this comment is about as usefull as the description of bowman that Lidstrom was "perfect."

All hockey players are human and have strengths and weakness and if we don't question assumptions of untouchable and perfect then what the hell are we doing here?

Orr doesn't hold every record, not all of the competition played in an every expanding league on a team that played to his strengths.

All players play under different circumstances and have different lengths or peaks, primes and total career value and different playoff and international value and intangibles. It would be nice if people were consistent when pulling out any of these aspects and placing some context into these things.

All too often context is overlooked, downplayed or more or less ignored in top 5,10 finishes, SC counting , award voting and all sorts of things maybe to some weird adherence to the infamous sticky in this section.

For the most part the history section has a great deal of good analysis and discussion but we should always question everything IMO and not just take things for granted.

 

[Czech Your Math]

They played in the 70's when the league was more imbalanced than it was in Lidstroms career.
We all know that Detroit was a better team than Boston but this gets trotted out every time as some sort of negative for Lidstrom.

That's true, the 70s were very imbalanced. That doesn't seem like much of an advantage for Potvin though, given that he started in his franchise's second year of existence. Also, the whole point of adjusted plus-minus is that each player on the team if facing the same teams. Whether it was the Habs and Isles back then or the Wings the past two decades, these D-men were playing on one of the best teams of their era.

Orr doesn't hold every record, not all of the competition played in an every expanding league on a team that played to his strengths.

All players play under different circumstances and have different lengths or peaks, primes and total career value and different playoff and international value and intangibles. It would be nice if people were consistent when pulling out any of these aspects and placing some context into these things.

All too often context is overlooked, downplayed or more or less ignored in top 5,10 finishes, SC counting , award voting and all sorts of things maybe to some weird adherence to the infamous sticky in this section.

For the most part the history section has a great deal of good analysis and discussion but we should always question everything IMO and not just take things for granted.

Certainly we each have our own perspective. It's sort of a paradox: At times I see too little common ground to even have a beneficial discussion, while other times there almost seems to be too much "agreement" on things... like exactly how great a player from before WWII was compared to more recent players, etc.

In the end, most may gravitate back to their existing biases. I see that with players at other positions that are easier to evaluate, so it's no surprise that it happens with defensemen. Personally, I'd rather try to evaluate players with whatever objective evidence is available than accept the established dogma. I may be wrong in some cases, but at least there's a chance at coming to a more reasoned conclusion and learning something in the process.

 

[Hobnobs]

I don't think it punishes Lidstrom so much as it points out how ridiculous the people saying "what did Bourque ever lead the bruins to?" are in their logic.

It shows both. People have been using the "Lidstrom has better teammates"-argument numerous times to downplay him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

It shows both. People have been using the "Lidstrom has better teammates"-argument numerous times to downplay him.

Not to "downplay" him, to counter the "Lidstrom has 4 Cups" dogma.
Those 4 Cups are more a product of that team than they are about Lidstrom.
Unless of course you believe Henri Richard is the greatest hockey player ever


Like you're not honestly going to sit there and say that playing for those Wings teams all those years didn't afford Lidstrom a lot of safe, easy and conservative decisions that Bourque couldn't or wasn't allowed to make.
Bourque and those Bruin teams couldn't afford for him to just sit back and wait for PP's to produce offense and expect to win.

As I have said many times in the past...put Lidstrom in a situation where he has to produce at Bourque's level offensively (especially at even strength) and I have little doubt in my mind that Lidstrom's defense would drop below the level which Bourque maintained.
Bourque could play Lidstrom's style and did on occasion. The reverse is simply not true.

Ray was THE master of risk management, Lidstrom was just THE master of taking little or no risk.

At the end of the day, what do you truly want? The guy that can control the full 180' or the guy that can control 90'?
Your call, I think everyone already knows which I choose.

 

[Hobnobs]

Not to "downplay" him, to counter the "Lidstrom has 4 Cups" dogma.
Those 4 Cups are more a product of that team than they are about Lidstrom.
Unless of course you believe Henri Richard is the greatest hockey player ever


Like you're not honestly going to sit there and say that playing for those Wings teams all those years didn't afford Lidstrom a lot of safe, easy and conservative decisions that Bourque couldn't or wasn't allowed to make.
Bourque and those Bruin teams couldn't afford for him to just sit back and wait for PP's to produce offense and expect to win.

As I have said many times in the past...put Lidstrom in a situation where he has to produce at Bourque's level offensively (especially at even strength) and I have little doubt in my mind that Lidstrom's defense would drop below the level which Bourque maintained.
Bourque could play Lidstrom's style and did on occasion. The reverse is simply not true.

Ray was THE master of risk management, Lidstrom was just THE master of taking little or no risk.

At the end of the day, what do you truly want? The guy that can control the full 180' or the guy that can control 90'?
Your call, I think everyone already knows which I choose.

Argument from adverse consequences. Good for you.

 

[pluppe]

Honestly, I don't think many people underestimate Lidstrom at all.
In fact I think more people overestimate him than underestimate him.

I mean if a supposed "Lidstrom hater" like myself still has him as the 4th or 5th (depending on where I have Shore that week ) best D-man in History...I don't see any underestimating going on there no?

So where do you think you would rank him amongst all time defencemen if he had the same situation as Bourque? Just curious.


I really don´t want to post more in this topic but I figure the sooner it dies the better

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It is hard to put into words just how different the team was with Bourque on and off the ice. We once glanced at the 1990 Oilers/Bruins finals when someone attempted to say Bourque choked in the finals in one of these arguments, and the numbers were ridiculously good for him compared to the rest of his team.

Yes he was -1 in the series, but it was a team best, and ridiculous considering he was playing 30+ minutes a game in a series where they were outscored 20-8. Throw in the fact that he had a team best 3 goals, 2 assists and made the brilliant pass that resulted in another goal but did not get an assist in their game 3. He factored in to 6 of the Bruins 8 goals in the series.

The rest of the team was getting demolished when he was not on the ice that series. Even more amazing was the Oilers were playing a specific strategy in which Bourque was keyed in on as target #1 and not given the chance to jump in the play. The idea was, Bourque is the only bruin who can really carry the puck, don't let him. Dump it in his corner so he has to retrieve and then rush and bang him. Force him to make outlet passes to players who cannot do much with them, and then backcheck on Bourque as if he were a forward to prevent him from getting into the play.

If Bourque were on the red wings, that strategy would not have worked whatsoever since he would have an abundance of players who actually can carry the puck to make those perfect outlet passes to. The other difference being when off the ice, the rest of the wings team was pretty respectable due to their depth.

How true.

Its why he was so over-used. Every year started the same way, the Bruins coach talking about limiting Bourque's playing time. Until it was clear the only way for the team to succeed was for Bourque to play a ton.

As has been stated before, Cheevers would play Bourque for the entire 5 minute overtime when he coached.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So where do you think you would rank him amongst all time defencemen if he had the same situation as Bourque? Just curious.

I don't think my ranking would change much to be honest.

At the end of the day, it's Lidstrom's longevity and ability to maintain the level of play he did that puts him squarely in the top 5 for me.
Not so much how much hardware he has in his trophy case or how many rings he has on his fingers.
Maybe without the rings and hardware I would have had even more trouble putting him ahead of Potvin but I still believe it would of ended up that way.

At the end of the day, Bourque is just the better overall player between the two for me and for longer.

 

[Fred Taylor]

I always take Bourque, but I can see arguments for Lidstrom supporters.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe it's the Lidstrom affect and Tarheel mentioned the "untouchable 3" in Orr, Harvey and Bourque. this comment is about as usefull as the description of bowman that Lidstrom was "perfect."

Just to be clear, that's exactly what I was getting at with the word "untouchable". Not that those three are literally beyond equal. Hopefully it didn't come off that way.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Not to "downplay" him, to counter the "Lidstrom has 4 Cups" dogma.
Those 4 Cups are more a product of that team than they are about Lidstrom.
Unless of course you believe Henri Richard is the greatest hockey player ever


Like you're not honestly going to sit there and say that playing for those Wings teams all those years didn't afford Lidstrom a lot of safe, easy and conservative decisions that Bourque couldn't or wasn't allowed to make.
Bourque and those Bruin teams couldn't afford for him to just sit back and wait for PP's to produce offense and expect to win.

As I have said many times in the past...put Lidstrom in a situation where he has to produce at Bourque's level offensively (especially at even strength) and I have little doubt in my mind that Lidstrom's defense would drop below the level which Bourque maintained.
Bourque could play Lidstrom's style and did on occasion. The reverse is simply not true.

Ray was THE master of risk management, Lidstrom was just THE master of taking little or no risk.

At the end of the day, what do you truly want? The guy that can control the full 180' or the guy that can control 90'?
Your call, I think everyone already knows which I choose.

I do not believe there is a scenario where Bourque ever looks better than Lidstrom defensively or Lidstrom looks better than Bourque offensively. They were decently close in both categories but this is one where I fall back on the eyeball test. No matter the team, it would be apparent Bourque was better offensively and Lidstrom better defensively. Plain as day to me. Measuring the value of those differences is totally up for debate though.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I do not believe there is a scenario where Bourque ever looks better than Lidstrom defensively or Lidstrom looks better than Bourque offensively. They were decently close in both categories but this is one where I fall back on the eyeball test. No matter the team, it would be apparent Bourque was better offensively and Lidstrom better defensively. Plain as day to me. Measuring the value of those differences is totally up for debate though.

Its hard to say because we never got to see prime Lidstrom in a situation where he was relied on for his offense(except in his early years when he did make a lot of mistakes), nor Bourque being relied on to play Lidstrom's style(except in his final year when he was older and slower)

 

[Rhiessan71]

Its hard to say because we never got to see prime Lidstrom in a situation where he was relied on for his offense(except in his early years when he did make a lot of mistakes), nor Bourque being relied on to play Lidstrom's style(except in his final year when he was older and slower)

Not true at all. There were whole series' with the Bruins where the other team was so hell bent on neutralizing Bourque that he would draw them in and make simple plays. (This is documented earlier in this very thread in fact.)
Not to mention all those Canada Cup/World Cup and Olympics where he played defense first just like Lidstrom.

I'm sorry but to say we have never seen Bourque successfully play Lidstrom's style is just false.
That we have never seen Lidstrom successfully play Bourque's style is absolutely true.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Not true at all. There were whole series' with the Bruins where the other team was so hell bent on neutralizing Bourque that he would draw them in and make simple plays. (This is documented earlier in this very thread in fact.)
Not to mention all those Canada Cup/World Cup and Olympics where he played defense first just like Lidstrom.

I'm sorry but to say we have never seen Bourque successfully play Lidstrom's style is just false.
That we have never seen Lidstrom successfully play Bourque's style is absolutely true.

A series is one thing. I was speaking in terms of a whole season, or perhaps a few. A single series is not enough to go on.

 

[tombombadil]

like usual, not passing an opinion on a very close call. One thing I see brought up here is Bourque's playoff superiority. When, in fact, his numbers tail off quite a bit in the playoffs, and Nik's don't. In fact, you hardly need to adjust for era to see them as equal point producers... and even goal producers in the playoffs.

Another thing - there's a thread going around here about 'worst players to lead their teams in points' Playing on a worse team, and leading in points does not automatically trump a player on a stronger team coming in 3rd or 4th on his team.

Again, I don't see a clearcut winner, but I do see those two arguments as flimsy.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I only saw Ray Bourque's later career. But based on his point totals right through the end, I will have to say Bourque...after Bobby Orr and Denis Potvin, Bourque is the best offensive-minded D-man ever (Coffey would be next), and Bourque (1612 games) had much longer careers than Potvin (1060) and Orr (657). That trade also seemed to usher in a second wind for Bourque.

Another sign of greatness: His rookie season, Bourque was +52 (he was +528 for his career; Lidstrom was +450). Another reason why the Draft of 1979 is perhaps the best ever in the NHL.

This is not AINEC, however.

The plus/minus for Bourque and Lidstrom needs to be taken into some sort of context though.

During Bourques career here is the plus/minus seasons for Dmen over plus 10

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

61 seasons over plus 40
27 over plus 50

here for Lidstroms career same metric

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

14 seasons over plus 40
4 over plus 50

Many people argue that the "competition" between Dmen for Bourque is much greater than Lidstrom but also there is something telling in those stats as well and some of this difference in the "competition level" isn't as great as it's made out to be and it's more difficult to stand out as much in a more competitive league than a less competitive league.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Just to be clear, that's exactly what I was getting at with the word "untouchable". Not that those three are literally beyond equal. Hopefully it didn't come off that way.

My mistake as I didn't go back and read the post when I thought of it in my general replay.

It's the sometimes use, or overuse, of the words untouchable or perfect that I was referencing more than your quote.

 

[Dark Shadows]

like usual, not passing an opinion on a very close call. One thing I see brought up here is Bourque's playoff superiority. When, in fact, his numbers tail off quite a bit in the playoffs, and Nik's don't. In fact, you hardly need to adjust for era to see them as equal point producers... and even goal producers in the playoffs.

2 different animals there. I don't think anyone was calling Bourque a superior playoff performer. More likely they were merely highlighting how great he was since many people do try to downplay his playoff heroics. His 2 Conn Smythe worthy performances often turn into his naysayers "he choked in the finals" conversations when in fact he was stellar in the playoffs.

Its a different situation for Defensemen vs Forwards in the playoffs, where forwards are expected to be up front and score vs Defensemen(The kind with defensive responsibilities) have to start from the other side of the rink and get involved if able. Defensemen numbers often decrease in the playoffs in situations where the folks they are making those breakout passes to don't do anything with them. Especially in a situation like Bourque's where the other team focuses their shutdown strategy on him over the Bruins forwards. Dumping the puck into Bourque's corner and forechecking on him hard forcing him to pass it to a teammate, preventing him from carrying the puck and then backchecking on him like a forward to keep him from joining the play since they were not worried about what his teammates would do with the puck.

Granted it would not have worked if you have options to pass the puck to who could make things happen.

Another thing - there's a thread going around here about 'worst players to lead their teams in points' Playing on a worse team, and leading in points does not automatically trump a player on a stronger team coming in 3rd or 4th on his team.

Again, I don't see a clearcut winner, but I do see those two arguments as flimsy.

Of course not. In Bourque's case, usually you focus on the fact that he led his team in scoring more than any other defenseman in history, and lead teams often challenged offensively well above where they were expected to finish with few guns.

 

[Rhiessan71]

A series is one thing. I was speaking in terms of a whole season, or perhaps a few. A single series is not enough to go on.

Bourque was never afforded the freedom to actually play a conservative style in Boston for anything close to an entire season.
Just the fact that he could seamlessly and very successfully transition styles from series to series, tournament to tournament speaks volumes in itself.

At the end of the day, actually producing offense in the NHL (especially at even strength) is harder than playing defensively.
Bourque could and has successfully played like Lidstrom. Lidstrom has never and IMO could never successfully play and/or produce like Bourque.

Again, Bourque was THE master of risk management. Lidstrom, THE master of taking no risk.

Why did Karlsson win the Norris last season?
Because it's a lot harder to be a responsible point per game D-man in the NHL than it is to be a stay at home shut down D-man that can run a PP.
One list is a hell of a lot longer than the other there folks.

 

[toob]

Not true at all. There were whole series' with the Bruins where the other team was so hell bent on neutralizing Bourque that he would draw them in and make simple plays. (This is documented earlier in this very thread in fact.)
Not to mention all those Canada Cup/World Cup and Olympics where he played defense first just like Lidstrom.

I'm sorry but to say we have never seen Bourque successfully play Lidstrom's style is just false.
That we have never seen Lidstrom successfully play Bourque's style is absolutely true.

There have been various mentions of Lidstrom playing a more offensive style in this thread and the other 20 Lidstrom threads recently. I have personally pointed out before in one of these threads to you or tarheelhockey or another Bourque fan that Lidstrom in the 96 playoffs had to play a more offensively involved role and did just fine in it.

And it isnt hard to see because Lidstrom has all the attributes to be a good offensive defenseman: skating, shot, passing, vision. No doubt in my mind that if he played on a team without any top end offense or depth offense (both of which he had in Detroit) he could play an offensive style and be very close to a guy like Bourque in terms of production. Oh wait he already is in production actually so lets say offensive contribution. I realize some of you think Bourque is close to the level of Orr or Coffey offensively but lettuce be reality.

 

[Hobnobs]

Bourque was never afforded the freedom to actually play a conservative style in Boston for anything close to an entire season.
Just the fact that he could seamlessly and very successfully transition styles from series to series, tournament to tournament speaks volumes in itself.

At the end of the day, actually producing offense in the NHL (especially at even strength) is harder than playing defensively.
Bourque could and has successfully played like Lidstrom. Lidstrom has never and IMO could never successfully play and/or produce like Bourque.

Again, Bourque was THE master of risk management. Lidstrom, THE master of taking no risk.

Why did Karlsson win the Norris last season?
Because it's a lot harder to be a responsible point per game D-man in the NHL than it is to be a stay at home shut down D-man that can run a PP.
One list is a hell of a lot longer than the other there folks.

Karlsson were top-5 in a giveaways. He won almost solely on offensive stats and the fact that he did have a minor improvement defensively. To his credit tho, I bet he blocked more shots than Coffey ever did during a season and he did have plenty of takeaways too.

I also think that you only remember Lidström post-lockout where he took as little risk as possible to be able to cover up for players like Rafalski and White. When he played with Murphy he was a THE master of risk management (including leading NHL defensemen in SH points). It was the same thing with Bourque at the later stages of his career. He got a majority of his points on the PP.

I think you underrate Lidströms offense and Im not saying you are doing it intentionally. The fact as you downplay him as a shutdown d-man who can run a PP points at it being intentional tho.