Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Corto]

The fact that the Bruins were good and the Wings were bad before these guys arrived as rookies is pretty trivial.

Both were (Lidstrom still is) phenomenal players who anchored their teams for 2 decades, and hardly ever had a sub-par season.

Boston had the misfortune of Ray, Neely and Co. playing in the time of some great teams, though Lidstrom's Red Wings did have strong opposition as well.
Besides, a stacked roster is no guarantee of anything, as the Selanne/Kariya Avs showed everyone.

...

Bottom line, 2 ridiculously good players, spanning their play at a high level for 20 years, and both great candidates for #2 D of all time.

If you think Lidstrom > Bourque, that's fine.
If you think Bourque > Lidstrom, that's fine too.

It's much too close to say one was better than the other and label it a "fact".

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.



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.

Good post but the thing missing is that those Bruin teams were up against the dynasty teams of the Isles, Oilers and Pens from 1980-1992 so blaming Bourque for not winning any Cups during those years is pretty ridiculous to say the least.
Unless you had a Steve Smith blunder coupled with some rookie goalie named Waw standing on his freakin head, it wasn't happening for anyone during those 13 years.

Lidstrom on the other hand was on the other side of the coin, he was part of a dynasty level team.

Until Bourque arrived in Colorado, he was always on an underdog, Lidstrom was always on a favourite.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Both were (Lidstrom still is) phenomenal players who anchored their teams for 2 decades, and hardly ever had a sub-par season.

Not true though, Bourque was an anchor from day one at 18 years old.
Lidtrom took many years to get to that same kind of status and he was already 3 years older than Bourque was when Lidstrom played his first game.

I'm sorry but that's a big gap no matter how you want to spell it.
Play the bias card too but the reality is that Lidstrom was not the same player in the early to mid 90's that he was in the late 90's and early to mid 2000's. He just wasn't.
Bourque was from day 1 at much younger age to boot.

...and I hate to do this but...that IS a fact!

 

[Sens Rule]

I think this is not about who was better relative to other defencemen they competed against for the Norris trophy or All Star berths. It is about who was better relative to ALL THE STAR PLAYERS of their time.

It is why Bourque is, to me, better than Lidstrom. Two second place Hart votes... Not that Hart votes are everything.

It is why Chelios in Chicago was better than Lidstrom, Why Kelly was better on the Wings first Dynasty, why Potvin was better.

We can gush over Lidstrom but really when he was at his best, few thought he was the best player in the world. Few thought he was top 3 or top 5. Or even top 10 many seasons.

Excluding the anomolies of Orr, 66 and 99... Potvin and Bourque were considered to be better compared to other stars then Lidstrom was. Lidstrom is a guy you can look back at and say he was generational... but you wouldn't say he was generational in his prime during those years.. you'd say he is the best defencemen in the league. In hindsight he looks better because he was consistent, he had a myriad of defencemen and forwards be among the best in the world in his long decade plus Norris winning prime. And in hindsight he is always right there, never missed games, never had a bad year (well one off year for him).

In hindsight Lidstrom looks better then he was compared to the other stars of his time. In real time Potvin and Bourque were considered better.

And it isn't a slag on Lidstrom. You can argue what you want in hindsight, but in Hart Voting for example... Potvin was 2nd in voting one season... and had good Hart votes. Bourque was 2nd twice and top 5 I think 5 times. Kelly had a great Hart voting record. Lidstrom has done decent since the lockout finishing 4th once, before that he wasn't that high in voting for someone we want to consider the second best defenceman ever. And it is not useful to argue that defencemen didn't get Hart votes in Lidstrom's era... Defencemen have been shafted in Hart votes for a long, long time. I just scanned through the Hart votes since the 50's and it has goalies and defencemen high in voting from time to time throughout every time period.

Lidstrom was the best defenceman in the NHL for a long time. He has longevity at a high level like no one but Bourque so his lower peak can see him pass Potvin on the All-time list. But not Bourque.

Bourque was just a better hockey player, relative to his peers and relative to Nic Lidstrom. Their careers overlapped enough to say that. It is just clear to most that watched both play. Bourque was far more dynamic.

Lidstrom's best offensive season where he got 80 points in 05/06 was also the season they called a ridiculous number of penalties and he got 50 PPP and was 4th on his team in scoring. Someone earlier said it was better offensively then Bourque's best season due to adjusted stats or something. That is lunacy and using statistics in silly ways. It was a great season by Lidstrom. He was 7th in Hart voting. It was not as good offensively as the 10 best seasons by Bourque where he was his teams best offensive player, if not scoring leader, on the PP AND at even strength.

I just can't see anyone that saw both play pick Lidstrom. It is just not close to me. Bourque was simply better. He absolutely dominated 200 feet of the ice while Lidstrom dominated his own end and the PP.

It is not an insult to have Lidstrom below Bourque. Bourque was unbelievably good.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

The NHL in the second half (2000's) of Lidstrom's career was a better league than it was in Bourque's first half (1980's). I know most in this section have convinced themselves this isn't true but it should be common sense by now. As hockey grows and more people participate there is more money involved, therefore players train harder, develop their skills further, have to be more precise, stronger, faster, etc. Overall in the NHL the individual skills, team play and systems are more advanced now and the level of competition is higher than ever. I don't expect to convince you of this today but eventually you will all have to deal with this reality.

Take this fact and add to it that Lidstrom did win more than Bourque, both individually and as part of a team, and it's a no brainer. Lidstrom was also more durable, took less penalties, and that defensive game of his is something that simply can't be measured. It certainly got results though.

I wish I had Canada's most respected analyst Bob McKenzie on video when he shyly (he's Canadian afterall) admitted Lidstrom is better than Bourque was. Most unbiased former players and analysts who have been paying attention would agree. Bourque was a dominant force on the ice no question but Lidstrom had an extra flare to his game that made him really rise to the occasion in big games and be unbelievably consistent game in and game out during his prime. Maybe the word "perfect" is overblown but that's what comes to mind.

Rome wasn't built in a day but it's almost time to give up on this HOH section because you guys really don't get it. I realize it's fun discussing and debating the history of hockey but when comparing players across eras you have to realize the sport hasn't been static all this time. When people start pretending players in the past were better because they played on outdoor rinks more than I think it's time for me to stop posting here. How someone can hold onto that when we know the sport has grown in every way is mind boggling to me.

You might of missed the part when both Bourque/ Lidstrom played at the same time and Bourque was still better, even as an old man.

Creativity and skill are lacking now in the NHL and replaced with strength and speed. The systems in place and the dedication towards training, individually have changed. The focus is more on conditioning /playing within a system ect there it is on personal skill. We may never see the talent of a Gretzky or Lemieux again and guess when they were in their prime, it wasn't today.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It is why Bourque is, to me, better than Lidstrom. Two second place Hart votes... Not that Hart votes are everything.

It is why Chelios in Chicago was better than Lidstrom, Why Kelly was better on the Wings first Dynasty, why Potvin was better.

We can gush over Lidstrom but really when he was at his best, few thought he was the best player in the world. Few thought he was top 3 or top 5. Or even top 10 many seasons.

Please god no.. no please god.. no.. no.. no

Not the Hart trophy thing against Lidstrom again.

Outside of the stars aligning for Pronger in 2000 - defensemen don't win Harts right now for whatever reason.

Therefore comparing their Hart records is relatively meaningless.

 

[Hobnobs]

You might of missed the part when both Bourque/ Lidstrom played at the same time and Bourque was still better, even as an old man.

Creativity and skill are lacking now in the NHL and replaced with strength and speed. The systems in place and the dedication towards training, individually have changed. The focus is more on conditioning /playing within a system ect there it is on personal skill. We may never see the talent of a Gretzky or Lemieux again and guess when they were in their prime, it wasn't today.

and you missed out on that Bourque developed his NHL skills before '86 which is of major importance when it comes to offensive defensemen. Specially since you touch on the subject of creativity and skill.

Bourque never played within a system not even in the dead puck era. He did what he always did produced because of the skills set he aquired pre-86. This doesnt make him better but a product of his era. What you are using against Lidström would be the same as it against defensemen who played before the forward pass.

 

[danincanada]

You might of missed the part when both Bourque/ Lidstrom played at the same time and Bourque was still better, even as an old man.

Really? Post '97-'98 Lidstrom was certainly the better player. I'd say they pretty much split the years when both played in the league. Bourque was better while in his prime and Lidstrom was younger and Lidstrom was better when he entered his prime and Bourque started to tail off.

Creativity and skill are lacking now in the NHL and replaced with strength and speed. The systems in place and the dedication towards training, individually have changed. The focus is more on conditioning /playing within a system ect there it is on personal skill. We may never see the talent of a Gretzky or Lemieux again and guess when they were in their prime, it wasn't today.

Creativity and skill amongst individual players now is higher than ever in my opinion. It's just harder to display because every player is so good and so are defensive systems and goaltending. If I play in a C league I can show a lot of flash but put me in an A or even B league and it's going to be a lot harder and I am going to have to play safer. That's the difference. You are confusing this with players being better in the past. Generally the NHL and it's players now are better than ever. I still think Gretzky and Lemieux would stand out because they were just that good but not to the extent they did when they played.

 

[danincanada]

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.

Who faced a tougher group of defenseman when they entered the league? Look at the Norris winners in the early 80's compared to the early 90's. You can't have it both ways with the competition argument.

Also, the NHL of the early 90's was a much better league than the NHL of the early 80's. The influx of Russians and growth of the game changed everything. Drop Lidstrom into the NHL in the early 80's with his skillset and he'd fair even better than he did in the early 90's.

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.

By the time Lidstrom was 28 he was already a two-time cup winner and #1 defenseman on those teams. To me the playoffs are more important than regular season play and always have been. Lidstrom also go shafted for his first Norris in '98, so yeah, it is remotely close.

The Calder talk is silly. Lidstrom lost to a Russian in Bure. If a 20 year old Makarov or Fetisov came across the pond in '79-80 Bourque would have been in tough as well. Both Lidstrom and Bourque had great rookie seasons.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Outside of the stars aligning for Pronger in 2000 - defensemen don't win Harts right now for whatever reason.

The reason is simple: no defenseman since Bourque has been dominant enough.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The reason is simple: no defenseman since Bourque has been dominant enough.

I'm sorry, in the 80s you had Mark Howe and Rod Langway as Hart finalists. Does anyone really believe that those two were more dominant than Lidstrom?

 

[Hobnobs]

The reason is simple: no defenseman since Bourque has been dominant enough.

Rather the role of the defenseman has changed.

 

[Reds4Life]

The reason is simple: no defenseman since Bourque has been dominant enough.

Oh this crap again. What's YOUR definition of dominant?

 

[tarheelhockey]

The Calder talk is silly. Lidstrom lost to a Russian in Bure. If a 20 year old Makarov or Fetisov came across the pond in '79-80 Bourque would have been in tough as well. Both Lidstrom and Bourque had great rookie seasons.

I agree that the Calder is irrelevant, but nationality is the wrong angle to take. Two Europeans received Calder votes in Bourque's rookie year. Stastny won it the very next season. It wasn't an all-NA league anymore and the best Russians wouldn't have been in Bourque's class anyway.

The Calder is irrelevant simply because comparing a randomly-variant group of players of the same age for only 1 season tells us nothing useful in the big picture.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm sorry, in the 80s you had Mark Howe and Rod Langway as Hart finalists. Does anyone really believe that those two were more dominant than Lidstrom?

Obviously they were.

 

[MadLuke]

Gretzky could have won it instead of Bourque with different rules anyway iirc.

Calder is really silly, imagine in the futur people saying that Crosby or Lindros did not win the calder, etc... Competition for it have so much variation from year's to year's.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm sorry, in the 80s you had Mark Howe and Rod Langway as Hart finalists. Does anyone really believe that those two were more dominant than Lidstrom?

Those two COMBINED for 1 first-place vote in years where Gretzky combined for 114. Howe had 32 voting points, which would have been good for 5th place the following season. That's a pretty loose definition of "finalist", based primarily on scraping up third-place votes rather than actual contention for the award.

Bourque was a Hart-quality defenseman. It's simple to understand. His 1990 was the only close-call a defenseman had at the trophy between Orr in 1972 and Pronger in 2000, right in the middle of Lidstrom's prime.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Please god no.. no please god.. no.. no.. no

Not the Hart trophy thing against Lidstrom again.

Outside of the stars aligning for Pronger in 2000 - defensemen don't win Harts right now for whatever reason.

Therefore comparing their Hart records is relatively meaningless.

I've said the same thing to TDDM in the past: In which seasons do you believe defensemen should have received a Hart nomination? It's not enough to say that it is the trend, hence why it never happens; you have to say which years a defenseman was actually a top three player.

Pretty much all of us believe that Bourque was legitimately the second best player in the NHL in 1987 and 1990. But in Lidstrom's best seasons, would you put him over any one of the nominated players?


Because I think the reason they don't win Harts is because no one has put together a performance worthy of one against the rest of the field now that we have a larger league.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Or maybe Bourque was much more valuable to his team than Lidstrom, despite not peaking much higher.

 

[toob]

not that i think Lidstrom shoulda won any Harts himself but Bourque's 90 Hart close call was only made possible by the fact that the 3 best players in the world were playing on non playoff teams

there are quite clearly different standards for Hart voting and these manifest themselves sometimes annually

i think it is sometimes hard to get Hart consideration when a couple of forwards on your team are better than you so Lidstrom is in a really bad position for Hart voting comparison

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've said the same thing to TDDM in the past: In which seasons do you believe defensemen should have received a Hart nomination? It's not enough to say that it is the trend, hence why it never happens; you have to say which years a defenseman was actually a top three player.

Pretty much all of us believe that Bourque was legitimately the second best player in the NHL in 1987 and 1990. But in Lidstrom's best seasons, would you put him over any one of the nominated players?


Because I think the reason they don't win Harts is because no one has put together a performance worthy of one against the rest of the field now that we have a larger league.

I probably wouldn't have given him the Hart because of the "most valuable" part, but I think Lidstrom was probably the best player in the world in 2002 and 2006. Maybe 2007. 2001 would be a toss between Lidstrom and Sakic for me (ignoring for a moment Lemieux's half season when he was clearly better than everyone).

 

[danincanada]

I agree that the Calder is irrelevant, but nationality is the wrong angle to take. Two Europeans received Calder votes in Bourque's rookie year. Stastny won it the very next season. It wasn't an all-NA league anymore and the best Russians wouldn't have been in Bourque's class anyway.

The Calder is irrelevant simply because comparing a randomly-variant group of players of the same age for only 1 season tells us nothing useful in the big picture.

I agree with your points. Lidstrom was in a unique situation where the NHL was being flooded with world class Russian players for the first time when he entered the league. Makes it harder to stand out in the league in general and obviously as a rookie in this case.

With regards to the Hart Trophy talk...I don't put much stock in the Hart because even the voters are often confused by it. "Most valuable to his team" doesn't mean best player in the world. With that said, there's no question Lidstrom should have got more respect in Hart voting and Ken Holland has often noted this. Being a dman who plays half the game like he did is more valuable to a team than an offensive forward who plays 8 to 10 less minutes per game. By its definition goalies should win the Hart most seasons because they often carry their teams the most.

 

[MadLuke]

Or maybe Bourque was much more valuable to his team than Lidstrom, despite not peaking much higher.

Very true, this is the Hart vote a mvp, not the best player in the league vote. hard to have hart consideration when playing for the red wings with Yzerman/Federov/Chelios and Datsyuk afterward.

 

[YNWA14]

I think Denis Potvin vs. Ray Bourque is a better argument.

 

[quoipourquoi]

With regards to the Hart Trophy talk...I don't put much stock in the Hart because even the voters are often confused by it. "Most valuable to his team" doesn't mean best player in the world. With that said, there's no question Lidstrom should have got more respect in Hart voting and Ken Holland has often noted this. Being a dman who plays half the game like he did is more valuable to a team than an offensive forward who plays 8 to 10 less minutes per game. By its definition goalies should win the Hart most seasons because they often carry their teams the most.

Then let's not talk strictly about the Hart itself. We're able to form our own opinions about things; we all watch hockey too.

TDDM has listed the years in which he believes Lidstrom was a top three player. Which seasons do the rest of you have him that high?