Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

Status
Not open for further replies.

jkrx

Registered User
Feb 4, 2010
4,337
21
Ohhhh I see, you're using the "If you actually saw them play, you overrate them" argument.

Hmmm...you wouldn't of happened to be a child during the first part of Lidstrom's career would you? :sarcasm:



Thanks, I needed a good laugh :laugh:

I'm actually not here to disagree with your ranking of Bourque, Potvin and Lidström. It's simply not my cup of tea. I've stated several times that it doesnt really matter where you rank them. I simply have a problem with statements like "Bourque over Lidström is a no brainer" and "Bourques competition was a lot tougher" which would mean that you have Red Kelly, Harvey and Pilote very high and in fact higher than Lidström as their competition surely is better than Lidströms miniscule contemporaries, right?

You put guys like Stevens on a pedestal because he twice was 2nd in Norris voting. I even saw guys like Suter and Housley mentioned. One of the arguments you use against Lidström can be used against MacInnis yet he's one of your golden boys. It's rather laughable that you do skip various arguments from me as you cant counter them but focus on things that can't really be proved except for your much reassuring eye test.

However, it's nice to see you counter mine and others arguments on this matter with sarcasm and smileys. Makes you look insightful and intelligent.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,263
1,656
Chicago, IL
I'm actually not here to disagree with your ranking of Bourque, Potvin and Lidström. It's simply not my cup of tea. I've stated several times that it doesnt really matter where you rank them. I simply have a problem with statements like "Bourque over Lidström is a no brainer" and "Bourques competition was a lot tougher" which would mean that you have Red Kelly, Harvey and Pilote very high and in fact higher than Lidström as their competition surely is better than Lidströms miniscule contemporaries, right?

You put guys like Stevens on a pedestal because he twice was 2nd in Norris voting. I even saw guys like Suter and Housley mentioned. One of the arguments you use against Lidström can be used against MacInnis yet he's one of your golden boys. It's rather laughable that you do skip various arguments from me as you cant counter them but focus on things that can't really be proved except for your much reassuring eye test.

However, it's nice to see you counter mine and others arguments on this matter with sarcasm and smileys. Makes you look insightful and intelligent.

I think people say this because the two are comparable and very close in several aspects, but Bourque has a pretty clear edge in longevity. When everything is close and one thing is decidedly in one guys favor it makes the decision between the two seem like a no-brainer. It doesn't mean they aren't very close though
 

Reds4Life

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
3,975
333
I think people say this because the two are comparable and very close in several aspects, but Bourque has a pretty clear edge in longevity. When everything is close and one thing is decidedly in one guys favor it makes the decision between the two seem like a no-brainer. It doesn't mean they aren't very close though

This is quite debatable IMHO.

Bourque had more "elite" seasons (topX Norris, AST; though I believe Lidstrom was under-appreciated by the media for quite some time).

However, Lidstrom played almost the exact same number of games* (regular season + playoffs) in fewer years. In addition, Lidstrom has had more "long playoff runs" than Bourque, which definitely puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to regeneration over summer etc.

Something to consider.

*
Lidstrom = 1535 + 258 = 1793
Bourque = 1612 + 214 = 1826

=> By the end of this season, Lidstrom will have played MORE games than Bourque..in fewer years.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
28
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I'm actually not here to disagree with your ranking of Bourque, Potvin and Lidström. It's simply not my cup of tea. I've stated several times that it doesnt really matter where you rank them. I simply have a problem with statements like "Bourque over Lidström is a no brainer" and "Bourques competition was a lot tougher" which would mean that you have Red Kelly, Harvey and Pilote very high and in fact higher than Lidström as their competition surely is better than Lidströms miniscule contemporaries, right?

You put guys like Stevens on a pedestal because he twice was 2nd in Norris voting. I even saw guys like Suter and Housley mentioned. One of the arguments you use against Lidström can be used against MacInnis yet he's one of your golden boys. It's rather laughable that you do skip various arguments from me as you cant counter them but focus on things that can't really be proved except for your much reassuring eye test.

However, it's nice to see you counter mine and others arguments on this matter with sarcasm and smileys. Makes you look insightful and intelligent.

Hey, I just saw that one statement about if you have seen a player play, you overrate them and gave it what I thought it deserved.
I didn't treat it like an actual point because well...it isn't. It's silly statement and I think in retrospect you know it.

Either way, MacInnis isn't one of my "golden boys" as you put it. I have him behind Pronger but just ahead of Nieds. The difference, from a competition standpoint, is that Mac had consistency, Pronger did/does not.
For the record, prime Chelios and prime Coffey are my golden boys and please by all means show me where Lidstrom faced anything even remotely close to that kind of consistent competition over more than a decade straight?

As far as Stevens goes, that he only placed second for the Norris twice during his prime should not be used to diminish him. It should go towards showing just how freakishly tough the competition he was up against was.
Everyone knows how good Stevens was and the first question should be why didn't he place higher more often. After you dig a bit, you figure out why pretty damned quickly.

In regards to me not countering arguments....show me where?
In the multiple threads dealing with Lidstrom, show me where I failed to counter something.
I've been through it all at length from competition to team strength to calling bias for offensive era vs credit for defensive era not being addressed to eye test to using adjusted stats at par without context.
By all means, show me something I missed sir.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,263
1,656
Chicago, IL
This is quite debatable IMHO.

Bourque had more "elite" seasons (topX Norris, AST; though I believe Lidstrom was under-appreciated by the media for quite some time).

However, Lidstrom played almost the exact same number of games* (regular season + playoffs) in fewer years. In addition, Lidstrom has had more "long playoff runs" than Bourque, which definitely puts him at a disadvantage when it comes to regeneration over summer etc.

Something to consider.

*
Lidstrom = 1535 + 258 = 1793
Bourque = 1612 + 214 = 1826

=> By the end of this season, Lidstrom will have played MORE games than Bourque..in fewer years.

You bring up an intriguing point, it would be interesting to go back and see how Bourque performed the seasons after the long playoff runs he did have. If he performed up to his usual standard then it probably just comes down to Bourque having less opportunities because he wasn't part of a great franchise (I have not looked this up, but I'm betting there wasn't much of a difference just based on the fact that he was a basically a Norris contender every year). However, if he performed worse than usual after those long playoff runs then the longevity comparison may be closer, but I don't know if that would make up enough...

Even if you say that Lidstrom should've been recognized earlier, I don't think even the biggest Lidstrom fan would say he was an immediate elite defenseman like Bourque was. So maybe he has 2-3 more 2nd All Star team selections from 95-97, he's still several behind Bourque.
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
What's funny is that Bourque played for 1st place teams and was never able to win the Cup, but he gets a pass. He gets a complete pass for not winning the Cup or being able to lead his team to a Cup(Lidstrom has) despite playing on some very good teams.

In Ray Bourque's 20 years with the Bruins, the club won the division a mere five times. The only stretch in which the Bruins were more than mildly competitive was in the late 80's/very early 90's, and both Stanley Cup finals appearances saw them demolished by the Edmonton Oilers dynasty club.

I don't think points are a good argument, because Bourque played during very high scoring eras during his prime, and Lidstrom is the only dman to score over 1000 points that didn't play in the 80's anyway.

He scored 82 points as a 35 year old in the dead puck era (1995-1996). The final season of his career saw him score 59 points as a 40 year old, again in the dead puck era (2000-2001). His 410 career goals are far and away the most by an NHL defenseman.

Why isn't it a good argument, again? If you're seriously trying to suggest Nicklas Lidstrom is better than Raymond Bourque offensively, you haven't witnessed the latter play.

The competition argument is about all Bourque supporters have to go on

Oh really?

I'd like to point out the Lidstrom went up against a prime Pronger and Neidermayer(I know Neids isn't that special, but still a surefire HoFer) and very easily dominated the Norris trophy voting against two very good players and had to deal with a Canadian bias before he won in 2000.

Scott Neidermayer wasn't even in the Norris trophy discussion for the whopping majority of his career.
 

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
16,088
1,004
Braavos
He scored 82 points as a 35 year old in the dead puck era (1995-1996). The final season of his career saw him score 59 points as a 40 year old, again in the dead puck era (2000-2001). His 410 career goals are far and away the most by an NHL defenseman.

The what now?

Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh 70 69 92 161
Jaromir Jagr Pittsburgh 82 62 87 149
Joe Sakic Colorado 82 51 69 120
Ron Francis Pittsburgh 77 27 92 119
Peter Forsberg Colorado 82 30 86 116
Eric Lindros Philadelphia 73 47 68 115
Paul Kariya Anaheim 82 50 58 108
Teemu Selanne Anaheim 79 40 68 108
Alexander Mogilny Vancouver 79 55 52 107
Sergei Fedorov Detroit 78 39 68 10

95-96 wasn't the dead puck era....
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
I was a couple seasons off, but the point remains that Bourque's high offensive totals are not solely a product of playing in the 1980's. He was highly productive in every season he played in, regardless of the quality of team surrounding him.
 

pluppe

Registered User
Apr 6, 2009
693
3
In Ray Bourque's 20 years with the Bruins, the club won the division a mere five times. The only stretch in which the Bruins were more than mildly competitive was in the late 80's/very early 90's, and both Stanley Cup finals appearances saw them demolished by the Edmonton Oilers dynasty club.



He scored 82 points as a 35 year old in the dead puck era (1995-1996). The final season of his career saw him score 59 points as a 40 year old, again in the dead puck era (2000-2001). His 410 career goals are far and away the most by an NHL defenseman.

Why isn't it a good argument, again? If you're seriously trying to suggest Nicklas Lidstrom is better than Raymond Bourque offensively, you haven't witnessed the latter play.



Oh really?



Scott Neidermayer wasn't even in the Norris trophy discussion for the whopping majority of his career.

and I would not call 14 goals far and away (if you add playoffs Coffey beats him).
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,990
Brooklyn
I was a couple seasons off, but the point remains that Bourque's high offensive totals are not solely a product of playing in the 1980's. He was highly productive in every season he played in, regardless of the quality of team surrounding him.

But when comparing him to Lidstrom, it does make a difference. I'll take Lidstrom's 80 points in 2006 over Bourque's 82 points in 1996 easily.
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
and I would not call 14 goals far and away (if you add playoffs Coffey beats him).

Oops, forgot about him.

But when comparing him to Lidstrom, it does make a difference. I'll take Lidstrom's 80 points in 2006 over Bourque's 82 points in 1996 easily.

Why is there the need to take one over the other? And if so why would Lidstrom's be taken ahead when it came in the highest scoring season in NHL history (7,443 goals)?
 

peate

Smiley
Feb 16, 2007
20,085
14,939
The Island
I had to go over to HDB and check both players stats before justifying my choice and suddenly, it's not so clear cut as I thought.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=3146
http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=520

Having seen a lot more of Bourque than Lidstrom, who I saw mostly in the playoffs, I gave my vote to Ray since his career achievements were more present in my mind, but I sure loved Scotty Bowman's Wings and Nick was a elite player for sure.

Being rookie of the year, and a better shooter, remember he was the first to hit 4 targets in 4 shots in those skill competitions and did it almost every year, makes him the winner by a nose.

As a side note, I've always thought the term dead puck era (I've seen it mentioned in this thread) meant when players could freeze the puck along the boards and create a stoppage in play. Wasn't that gone by the year 2000? Or does it mean something else to some of you guys?

Edit: Never mind, I just answered my own question.
http://www.fiveholefanatics.ca/2008/07/dead-puck-era.html
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,263
1,656
Chicago, IL
Oops, forgot about him.



Why is there the need to take one over the other? And if so why would Lidstrom's be taken ahead when it came in the highest scoring season in NHL history (7,443 goals)?

This is not how you measure how high scoring a season is, it does not account for the number of games played or the number of teams in the league...you need to look at goals per game averages.

EDIT: In the two cases referenced, it was 6.29 in 95'-96' and 6.17 in 05'-06', which is pretty much even (comes down to about 5 goals more for an entire team over an entire season in the former)
 
Last edited:

Corto

Faceless Man
Sep 28, 2005
16,088
1,004
Braavos
Oops, forgot about him.



Why is there the need to take one over the other? And if so why would Lidstrom's be taken ahead when it came in the highest scoring season in NHL history (7,443 goals)?



The 05-06 HAD MORE TEAMS AND MORE GAMES than 95-96 or the 80s.
Goals per game, it doesn't even come close to being the highest scoring season.


GOALS PER GAME:

1995-1996: 6.29
2005-2006: 6.17

http://dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

There's the graph.

This doesn't take anything away from Bourque, but adjusted scoring matters in this case, there's simply no way someone who played during the 90s and basically peaked from 95 onwards could compete in points with a phenomenal player who was at the top of his game already during the 80s.

And especially if you use completely irrelevant numbers like most goals in a season when the actual goals-per-game is nowhere near the highest scoring seasons.
 

shadow1

Registered User
Nov 29, 2008
16,729
5,526
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just willfully ignoring facts for the sake of your argument?

Yes, because my argument of "Bourque's high offensive totals are not solely a product of playing in the 1980's" hinges greatly on whether his 82 point season in 1995-1996 was better or not than Lidstrom's 80 point effort in 2005-2006.

The 05-06 HAD MORE TEAMS AND MORE GAMES than 95-96 or the 80s.
Goals per game, it doesn't even come close to being the highest scoring season.


GOALS PER GAME:

1995-1996: 6.29
2005-2006: 6.17

http://dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

There's the graph.

That was not something I'd taken into account.

My strong suit isn't math, but wouldn't 2005-2006's average be lower (7,443/1,230 = 6.05) than it's listed? Wish I could calculate 1995-1996's as well, but can't find the league goal total for that season.

Regardless, it's neither here nor there. I don't care to argue over trivialities.
 

Fred Taylor

The Cyclone
Sep 20, 2011
3,174
31
The 05-06 HAD MORE TEAMS AND MORE GAMES than 95-96 or the 80s.
Goals per game, it doesn't even come close to being the highest scoring season.


GOALS PER GAME:

1995-1996: 6.29
2005-2006: 6.17

http://dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

There's the graph.

This doesn't take anything away from Bourque, but adjusted scoring matters in this case, there's simply no way someone who played during the 90s and basically peaked from 95 onwards could compete in points with a phenomenal player who was at the top of his game already during the 80s.

And especially if you use completely irrelevant numbers like most goals in a season when the actual goals-per-game is nowhere near the highest scoring seasons.

True, however it's already been shown in this thread that Bourque's scoring finishes blow Lidstrom's out of the water. There is no real difference between them offensively, so I don't see how anyone could conclude Lidstrom is better.
 

Slapshooter

Registered User
Apr 25, 2007
717
2
The Bruins were a 100 point team the eyar before Bourque joined them and went into the 2nd round of the playoffs and were a 105 point team and 2nd round team in his 1st year as well.
Sure Detroit had better players than Boston but it's not like Bourque played with the Vancouver Canucks, they had some talent on soem of his teams as well and the bad supporting cast gets overplayed alot in the Bourque cornrer.

80's and 90's Bruins played usually very well, true, but their roster depth was clearly inferior to any Cup winning Red Wings. Boston had not really cup winning depth compared to any champions of the era, except perhaps when compared to '93 Habs or '95 NJD who prevailed solely with a superior team defense. Not saying that Bruins had a bad roster at all, but their depth just wasn't even nearly elite level during the Bourque -era. Nothing revisionist in that.

Imo Bourque carried Bruins often to finnish better than their actual roster depth would have suggested. Sure he had some chances to win the cup, but Bruins never built a championship contender around him.

The whole "more Cups" -arqument is a pretty moot point here, when it is clear that a well stacked team like DRW - with every star committed to play disciplined defense - gonna eventually win the cup, even without Lidstrom. That being said, Lidstrom surely was one of the key players and with some lesser leading D-man Red Wings don't likely win as many cups.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Yes it was more of a comparison of some of the great D's of this era. I could have continued with adding Talbot, Vasko, Baun, Goldham, Johnson, Flaman, St. Laurent, Green, Bouchard, Arbour, Dewsbury, Goegan, Godfrey, Langlois, Mohns and Morrison.

Seems like in a 6 team league almost all the Dmen are considered great to some. The bar for greatness sure has been raised over time hasn't it?
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
In Ray Bourque's 20 years with the Bruins, the club won the division a mere five times. The only stretch in which the Bruins were more than mildly competitive was in the late 80's/very early 90's, and both Stanley Cup finals appearances saw them demolished by the Edmonton Oilers dynasty club.



He scored 82 points as a 35 year old in the dead puck era (1995-1996). The final season of his career saw him score 59 points as a 40 year old, again in the dead puck era (2000-2001). His 410 career goals are far and away the most by an NHL defenseman.

Why isn't it a good argument, again? If you're seriously trying to suggest Nicklas Lidstrom is better than Raymond Bourque offensively, you haven't witnessed the latter play.



Oh really?



Scott Neidermayer wasn't even in the Norris trophy discussion for the whopping majority of his career.

96 sure was a great year for Bourque but adjusted his 82 points is 79, not quite the affect the "clutch and grab era" that other years would have on scoring.

His great 01 season (59 points is 64 adjusted) was against his career trend and somewhat a result of playing for a strong Avs team as well.

Don't get me wrong he aged well but his post 30 career isn't any better in any way you slice it than Lidstroms post 30 career.

Bourque is by far the better goal scorer and his 410 goals adjusted is 368 while Lidstrom's 261 are adjusted to 292.

Of course Bourque averaged well over 1 shot per game more than Lidstrom as well.

One can go on and on with stats the difference between these 2 guys comes down to personal preference IMO.
 
Last edited:

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
28
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
One can go on and on with stats the difference between these 2 guys comes down to personal preference IMO.

Except that Bourque came into the league as an 18 year old and was immediately voted as a first team all-star, something that happened 12 more times in the next 17 years with the other 5 times as a second team all-star.
Then, just to prove he wasn't done yet garnered another 2nd team berth in '99 followed by once again cracking the 1rst team his last year in the league at age 40.

Let me put it another way, by the time Lidstrom played his first game in the NHL at 21, Bourque already had 2 1rst team and a 2nd team berth on his resume.
And by the time Lidstrom garnered his first all-star nomination at 28, Bourque by that age already had a Calder, 2 Norris, 6 1rst team and 3 2nd team all-star nods.

So while, as some have pointed out, the last halves of their careers are pretty even, their first halves are not even remotely close.

The unfortunate part is that most posters never saw the first half Bourque that dominated one of the strongest classes of D-men in the modern era.
Not to mention the 2 second place Hart finishes. One of which, if not for a completely biased Edmonton journalist that was the only one that left him completely off the ballot, he did win.
 
Last edited:

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,721
144,309
Bojangles Parking Lot
Let's not rewrite history here.

The Bruins were a 100 point team the eyar before Bourque joined them and went into the 2nd round of the playoffs and were a 105 point team and 2nd round team in his 1st year as well.

You have a point here, but we have to take the passage of time into consideration.

Bruins core when Bourque was in his first years: Middleton, Park, McNab, Ratelle, O'Reilly, Cashman
Goalies: Cheevers, Gilbert, Vachon

Bruins core when Bourque was in his early prime: Neely, Linseman, Janney, Crowder, Kluzak, Burridge
Goalies: Riggin, Lemelin, Keans, Ranford

Bruins core when Bourque was at his peak: Neely, Oates, Janney, Wesley, Sweeney, Galley
Goalies: Moog, Lemelin

Bruins core when Bourque was in his late prime: Oates, Stumpel, Donato, Sweeney... and a bunch of guys who couldn't be described as "core" even in a stretch
Goalies: Ranford, Lacher, Billington, Tallas

And of course they hit the "reset" button just before Bourque left, starting over with a young core of Thornton, Allison, Samsonov, Axelsson, Gill, McLaren, Dafoe.

Of the above, there's pretty clearly only two phases where the Bruins had a strong core: the period right when he arrived, which was essentially the last gasp of the Cherry-era team, and the period at his peak when they got beaten in the Finals by Edmonton. Outside of those phases, they never had a well-developed cohesive group... it was whatever junk washed up on shore.

Detroit in the two years before Lidstrom got there was a 70 point, non playoff team and then 76 one round team up to 98 points and 2 rounds in Lidstrom's 1st year.

A parallel analysis for Lidstrom:

Red Wings core in Lidstrom's first years: Yzerman, Fedorov, Ysebaert, Ciccarelli, Sheppard, Coffey, Chiasson, Konstantinov
Goalies: Chevaldae, Osgood

Red Wings core in Lidstrom's early prime: Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Larionov, Kozlov, Murphy, Konstantinov
Goalies: Vernon, Osgood, Hodson

Red Wings core in Lidstrom's mid-prime: Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Hull, Larionov, Draper, Chelios
Goalies: Osgood, Hasek, Legace, Joseph

Red Wings core in Lidstrom's late prime: Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Franzen, Holmstrom, Chelios, Kronwall
Goalies: Osgood, Hasek, Legace, Conklin, Howard

It's almost the opposite of Bourque's Bruins; there was always a long-term core of star players around Lidstrom, and when Father Time caught up with the first batch they were replaced with a comparably outstanding group. At no point in Lidstrom's actual career did the Wings find themselves drifting in mediocrity.

I see your point -- sometimes people act like Bourque's teams were pure garbage and Lidstrom was just a passenger on a dynasty -- but if you bore down to the individuals who passed through those locker rooms, it's obvious that Lidstrom enjoyed a much greater level of support from his teammates in nearly every phase of his career. The fact that the Bruins were good and the Wings were bad before these guys arrived as rookies is pretty trivial.

And that's before you even get into the fact Lidstrom was playing in the Mike Ilitch franchise for Scotty Bowman and Mike Babcock, not in the Jeremy Jacobs franchise for Gerry Cheevers and Mike Milbury. That's almost night-and-day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad