Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Rhiessan71]

People forget that Lidstrom missed all of 2005 because of the lockout. He's certainly in contention to get a 2nd Team AS in 2012.

So, we could be looking at something like 11-3-14 versus 13-6-19....

19 vs 14 AS selections

5 vs 7 Norris

0 vs 1 Conn Smythe

Lidstrom also has 6 top-10 Hart finishes (4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)

Bourque has two Hart Runner-ups, and a few more top-10

I really dont care about which era they played in. They both dominated their position.

There is absolutely no guarantee that Lidstrom gets an AS nomination in the lock out year, especially considering that he didn't get one the year previous, not even close to one in fact.
If anything, you could make the argument that if not for the lockout, he might not being playing now. The time off during the LO seemed to reinvigorate him and might just of added a year or two to his career.
And he is not probable to get a nomination this year, he will be lucky if he gets one.

Either way, two can play that game. If Bourque didn't miss 20 games in 96/97, he prolly has 20 AS nods.

So lets just leave it at 19-12 because that IS what it is. That IS a fact.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is absolutely no guarantee that Lidstrom gets an AS nomination in the lock out year, especially considering that he didn't get one the year previous, not even close to one in fact.
If anything, you could make the argument that if not for the lockout, he might not being playing now. The time off during the LO seemed to reinvigorate him and might just of added a year or two to his career.
And he is not probable to get a nomination this year, he will be lucky if he gets one.

Lidstrom was 5th in All-Star voting in 2003-04. I'd say that qualifies as "close" to an All Star nomination where the top 4 make the All Star Team.

I agree with your bigger point that the lockout seemed to rejuvenate Lidstrom.

Either way, two can play that game. If Bourque didn't miss 20 games in 96/97, he prolly has 20 AS nods.

So lets just leave it at 19-12 because that IS what it is. That IS a fact.

I think there's a pretty big difference between missing a season due to a work stoppage and getting injured.

If Lidstrom had won the 2004 Norris in addition to the 2006, I'd say that one could make a very good case that he was robbed of another 1st Team All Star spot. As is, it's hard to know what to make of his down year in 2003-04. I remember everyone was really surprised by how strongly he came back after the lockout.

 

[canucks4ever]

There is absolutely no guarantee that Lidstrom gets an AS nomination in the lock out year, especially considering that he didn't get one the year previous, not even close to one in fact.
If anything, you could make the argument that if not for the lockout, he might not being playing now. The time off during the LO seemed to reinvigorate him and might just of added a year or two to his career.
And he is not probable to get a nomination this year, he will be lucky if he gets one.

Either way, two can play that game. If Bourque didn't miss 20 games in 96/97, he prolly has 20 AS nods.

So lets just leave it at 19-12 because that IS what it is. That IS a fact.

No guarantee if bourque plays the full year in 1997 that he is an all star. If chelios played the full season they prolly would have kept him, considering that he was better defensively by that point . If lidstrom plays all 82 games, he ends up with 60 points and he was better defensively that year too. Scott Stevens was too valuable to the devils that year, they had no offense and he was brilliant. Considering that the bruins did not make the playoffs and finished last, im not too sure he would have been chosen.

One could easily make the argument that bryan mccabe got the all star selection because of stats in 2004, lidstrom was light years better defensively. Phil Housley's selection in 1992 was a stat award too, chelios and lidstrom would have been better picks. No one in thier right mind would rather have housley over chelios on thier team in 1992.

If all star selections is the criteria, well bourque trumps harvey in that regard too and for those that criticise lidstrom for playing on great teams, harvey played for the best team ever.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No guarantee if bourque plays the full year in 1997 that he is an all star. If chelios played the full season they prolly would have kept him, considering that he was better defensively by that point . If lidstrom plays all 82 games, he ends up with 60 points and he was better defensively that year too. Scott Stevens was too valuable to the devils that year, they had no offense and he was brilliant.

One could easily make the argument that bryan mccabe got the all star selection because of stats in 2004, lidstrom was light years better defensively.

Either way, we're arguing about 1 year.
Whether the tally is 20-13 or 19-12, it's still a HUGE gap in Bourque's favour. Almost 60% better in fact and no amount of arguing is going to lessen it by any measurable amount.

Out of all the comparisons between the two players, this is the only one where one of them completely and unarguably blows the other one away.
Every other comparison has numerous points and counter points to go along with them. This one is not only huge but also has no counter.

Tallying up everything else before you get to the AS nominations, you have a real close vote but once the AS nods go into the kitty, the scale tips greatly in Bourque's favour.

 

[canucks4ever]

Either way, we're arguing about 1 year.
Whether the tally is 20-13 or 19-12, it's still a HUGE gap in Bourque's favour. Almost 60% better in fact and no amount of arguing is going to lessen it by any measurable amount.

Out of all the comparisons between the two players, this is the only one where one of them completely and unarguably blows the other one away.

Your right he is ahead, but he trumps harvey too, not just lidstrom. Even if bourque has a lead in AST, lidstrom does have the edge in playoffs IMO.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Your right he is ahead, but he trumps harvey too, not just lidstrom. Even if bourque has a lead in AST, lidstrom does have the edge in playoffs IMO.

That is an argument for another thread and not for the first time.


But where Harvey gets bonus points as it were, is that he is the guy that wrote the book on how to play perfect positional defense.
Where Orr revolutionized the position overall and especially offensively. Harvey revolutionized the defensive side.
That's as much as I'm going to go into this in this thread. Start one on this and I'll join in for sure.


...and I agree....








The Detroit Red Wings from 91-2010 have a decided playoff advantage over the Boston Bruins from 79-99

(Didn't think it was going to be that easy did ya )

 

[danincanada]

Either way, we're arguing about 1 year.
Whether the tally is 20-13 or 19-12, it's still a HUGE gap in Bourque's favour. Almost 60% better in fact and no amount of arguing is going to lessen it by any measurable amount.

Out of all the comparisons between the two players, this is the only one where one of them completely and unarguably blows the other one away.
Every other comparison has numerous points and counter points to go along with them. This one is not only huge but also has no counter.

Tallying up everything else before you get to the AS nominations, you have a real close vote but once the AS nods go into the kitty, the scale tips greatly in Bourque's favour.

Regular season accomplishments are nice and all but the real games start when the playoffs roll around. That's when the men are separated from the boys and Lidstrom has to get the nod in that department. He's a winner and he's proven it many times.

Yeah, Bourque blows Lidstrom away, not even close. Is that what you're trying to say here?

 

[canucks4ever]

...and that is an argument for another thread and not for the first time.


But where Harvey gets bonus points as it were, is that he is the guy that wrote the book on how to play perfect positional defense.
Where Orr revolutionized the position overall and especially offensively. Harvey revolutionized the defensive side.
That's as much as I'm going to go into this in this thread. Start one on this and I'll join in for sure.

And there are coaches out there that would rather have lidstrom on thier team over bourque because he takes fewer gambles offensively and plays a better positional game.

We'll see how many deep playoff runs detriot will have once norris nick hangs up his skates for good.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Regular season accomplishments are nice and all but the real games start when the playoffs roll around. That's when the men are separated from the boys and Lidstrom has to get the nod in that department. He's a winner and he's proven it many times.

Lidstrom was surrounded by winners and his team was stocked to win. The only time Bourque enjoyed that same kind of support he won a Cup and came within 1 win of going for another. I'm sure all the Red Wing fans remember who the bigger winner was between Lidstrom and Bourque when they went head to head in 99/00 and please think long and hard about saying the Av's had a better team. You don't want to undo any of your arguments for downplaying team strength from previous discussions
And again, trying to fault Bourque for not being able to win a Cup vs the Isles, Oilers and Pens for the first 13 years of his career is absolutely ridiculous!

Yeah, Bourque blows Lidstrom away, not even close. Is that what you're trying to say here?

Not what I said. Bourque is the only one of the two that holds such a distinct, unarguable edge in any category and it tips the scale in Bourque's favour by more than just a slight amount imo.

And there are coaches out there that would rather have lidstrom on thier team over bourque because he takes fewer gambles offensively and plays a better positional game.

Bourque did what he was told to do and what he needed to do to push his team as far as they could go.
He didn't have the option of sitting back and letting other players do the scoring or waiting for a PP.
Bourque put up points or the Bruins didn't.

 

[MadLuke]

Lidstrom was surrounded by winners and his team was stocked to win.

Can you imagine the 1994-1995 wings with a 24/25 year's old Bourque instead of the 24/25 year's old Lidstrom....

Do they lose in 4 to the devils ?

Or 1996 with 25/26 year's old Bourque instead of lidstrom.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Can you imagine the 1994-1995 wings with a 24/25 year's old Bourque instead of the 24/25 year's old Lidstrom....

Do they lose in 4 to the devils ?

Or 1996 with 25/26 year's old Bourque instead of lidstrom.

Maybe the Wings don't get swept but that's about it imo.
The Devil's were playing almost perfect hockey at that time and they dominated the entire Detroit lineup.
As far as the Av's in '96, he prolly makes a difference and maybe they go 7 games instead of 6 but playing the what if game gets out of hand pretty quickly.

If your point is that a 25 and 26 year old Bourque is better than a 25 and 26 year old Lidstrom, I agree.

 

[VanIslander]

These ideas have always pissed me off:

Lemieux is better than Gretzky.
Crosby is better than Ovechkin.
Brodeur is better than Roy and Hasek.
Lidstrom is better than Bourque.

Notice how the former actually had careers that came mostly AFTER the latter. Comparing a newer superstar with an older superstar of course is par for the course, but to the ATTITUDE of 'which is better' or the new kid as better is often premature, and in the cases of Brodeur and Lidstrom more a product of the success of the skaters assembled to help them in New Jersey and Detroit than a sign of their individual greatness. I totally believe a Brodeur in Nashville and Florida would be another Vokoun, a Lidstrom in Atlanta a better than Enstrom but underappreciated. Lidstrom is a great player who is lucky enough to have been placed in the ideal organization for his style. I respect the heck out of him, but there is a clear gap between him and the Bourque I saw play for two decades, and no stat or voting record will convince me otherwise. There are 29 of you who have already voted Lidstrom as better than Bourque. To you I have nothing to say.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3

In 45 playoff games at 31-37 YO between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a - 28. That's -28 in 45 games.

Poor Lidstrom.

I remember threads like this one back in 2008, before his two additional Norris Trophies, 4 postseason AS team nods and two SCF, one which he was Conn Smythe worthy.

I often wonder if Bourque was European and Lidstrom was Canadian, well...you know where I'm going.

 

[Redwingsfan84]

Those are atrocious playoff stats!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Those are atrocious playoff stats!

They are, but he's cherry picking Bourque's worst years. Bourque was the best player on two Cup finalists, as well

 

[quoipourquoi]

They are, but he's cherry picking Bourque's worst years. Bourque was the best player on two Cup finalists, as well

Yeah, it was really impressive how he cutoff Bourque's three 20-point playoff runs just because.

 

[Rhiessan71]

From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3

In 45 playoff games at 31-37 YO between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a - 28. That's -28 in 45 games.

Poor Lidstrom.

I remember threads like this one back in 2008, before his two additional Norris Trophies, 4 postseason AS team nods and two SCF, one which he was Conn Smythe worthy.

I often wonder if Bourque was European and Lidstrom was Canadian, well...you know where I'm going.

That is some exceptionally fine cherry picking right there heh.

Do we really have to get into how many first round choke jobs Lidstrom and the highest payroll in hockey, usually first place or close to it Red Wings had over the years?
Do we really wanna cherry pick them too?


Sooo...lets take a look at what happened to Ray and Bruins over the years.

'80 met the Islanders in the second round...nuff said.

'81 Got destroyed by the eventual SC finalist North Stars in the first round, outscored 20-13.

'82 Lost a very close 7 game series in the 2nd round to the Nords, who in turn were destroyed by the Islanders in the next round.

'83 B's get to the Conf final only to face the Islanders...good luck with that, lost in 6 outscored 30-21.

'84 Met the Habs in the first round, never a good thing for the B's

'85 Habs again in the first round, put up a better fight though.

'86 Eventual SC Champion Habs in the first round again, swept.

'87 Oops guess who again, yep, yet another sweep by the Habs in the first round.

'88 B's make to the cup final only to face the Oilers, suffice it to say, they get destroyed in 4 1/2 straight, outscored 21-12.

'89 Didn't play the eventual SC finalist Habs till the 2nd round this time with about the same result, Habs in 5

'90 B's once again make it to the finals to face the Oilers again. Manage to win a game this time but still get destroyed, outscored 20-8. Bourque missed some games due to injury and played hurt.

'91 Conf final this time, faced a team lead by some guy named Mario...uhhh...yeah. Put up a decent showing though, going 6 but were out scored 27-18.

'92 Conf finals again against, yep, Mario and the Pens again. Got destroyed in a sweep, outscored 19-7

'93 Swept by Mayday! Mayday! Mayday!

'94 Lost a pretty close 6 game series to the Devils in the 2nd round

'95 Destroyed in the 1rst round in 5 games by the eventual Champion Devils. Outscored 14-5.

'96 Lost in the 1rst round in 5 to the eventual SC finalist Panthers

'97 Missed the PO's for the first and only time in his 22 year career

'98 Lost in the 1rst round in 6 to the eventual SC finalist Capitals

'99 Lost in the 2nd round in 6 to the eventual SC finalist Sabres

'00 Lost in the 3rd round in an extremely close 7 game series to the eventual SC finalist Stars

'01 Won the Cup


I don't know about you but that's some pretty brutal competition to go up against.
Directly faced Dynasty teams 6 times.
Eliminated by either the SC finalist or Cup winner a whopping 14 times out of 20!
Many losses to the Habs, a team has had their number for, well pretty much forever.

So pretty much anytime Bourque played on what we could call an above average or good B's team, it was an Isles, Oilers or Pens dynasty year. Pretty much the first 13 years of his career.
When Bourque finally got on a team on par with what Lidstrom had his whole career, he loses in a close 3rd round series the first year and wins a Cup his second.


So once again, don't even attempt to say Bourque not winning a Cup in Boston is his fault, not even remotely.

 

[Hardyvan123]

There is absolutely no guarantee that Lidstrom gets an AS nomination in the lock out year, especially considering that he didn't get one the year previous, not even close to one in fact.
If anything, you could make the argument that if not for the lockout, he might not being playing now. The time off during the LO seemed to reinvigorate him and might just of added a year or two to his career.
And he is not probable to get a nomination this year, he will be lucky if he gets one.

Either way, two can play that game. If Bourque didn't miss 20 games in 96/97, he prolly has 20 AS nods.

So lets just leave it at 19-12 because that IS what it is. That IS a fact.

I'm not a huge counter of anything, on it's own, because it only represents what voters did, and sometimes it doesn't show the whole picture.

Not that there is any way to tell but what if all the top talent in the world was in the NHL during Bourque's time like it was for Lidstrom. Fetisov and Kasatonov might come into play for some of those all star nods perhaps, would we look at Bourque any differently?

And perhaps Bourque and Boston has to play a team or two in an unbalanced schedule with Makarov and some other Russian stars in their prime and peaks.

Bourque had a wonderful rookie year but both Savard and Potvin who were all stars in the year previous were injured and didn't make the 80 team (and Potvin surely would have). Potvin also missed the allstar team in 82 and 83 mainly due to time missed again.

It's conceivable that with a fully integrated NHL and a healthy Potvin that we might view the start of Bourque's career slightly differently.

At the tail end Bourque was also fortunate to have both Pronger and Al MacInnis miss considerable time with injury to make his last all star appearance.

While Bourque was great, one of the top 5 of all time IMO and maybe top 3, he was also a bit fortunate with the circumstances of some of the other elite Dmen in some of his all star seasons.

 

[Hardyvan123]

These ideas have always pissed me off:

Lemieux is better than Gretzky.
Crosby is better than Ovechkin.
Brodeur is better than Roy and Hasek.
Lidstrom is better than Bourque.

Notice how the former actually had careers that came mostly AFTER the latter. Comparing a newer superstar with an older superstar of course is par for the course, but to the ATTITUDE of 'which is better' or the new kid as better is often premature, and in the cases of Brodeur and Lidstrom more a product of the success of the skaters assembled to help them in New Jersey and Detroit than a sign of their individual greatness. I totally believe a Brodeur in Nashville and Florida would be another Vokoun, a Lidstrom in Atlanta a better than Enstrom but underappreciated. Lidstrom is a great player who is lucky enough to have been placed in the ideal organization for his style. I respect the heck out of him, but there is a clear gap between him and the Bourque I saw play for two decades, and no stat or voting record will convince me otherwise. There are 29 of you who have already voted Lidstrom as better than Bourque. To you I have nothing to say.

With all due respect, the clear gap that you refer to, is a superficial one or one that appearances on the surface if one looks at it closely and fairly then the gap isn't clear at all.

It's fine to prefer one over the other but to state so forcefully that there is a clear gap and to "have nothing to say to the 29 guys who voted for Lidstrom" might be better put that "you have nothing concrete to add here."

 

[Rhiessan71]

While Bourque was great, one of the top 5 of all time IMO and maybe top 3, he was also a bit fortunate with the circumstances of some of the other elite Dmen in some of his all star seasons.

And Lidstrom wasn't?
C'mon man, lets not pretend that Bourque's last 10 years were not the same years as Lidstrom's first 10.
Lidstrom benefited from absences of both Pronger and MacInnis too, as well as time missed by Leetch, Blake and Niedermayer.
Not to mention all the former elite D-men declining and/or retiring just as Lidstrom hit his stride.

Lets just make sure we apply that standard equally shall we

 

[Hardyvan123]

And Lidstrom wasn't?
C'mon man, lets not pretend that Bourque's last 10 years were not the same years as Lidstrom's first 10.
Lidstrom benefited from absences of both Pronger and MacInnis too, as well as time missed by Leetch, Blake and Niedermayer.
Not to mention all the former elite D-men declining and/or retiring just as Lidstrom hit his stride.

Lets just make sure we apply that standard equally shall we

That was the entire point of my post, for the record I ahve Orr, Lidstrom and Bourque in my top 3 and the order really isn't that important. People should take a closer look at all the circumstances around both players careers instead of just counting what is, we know how many all stars each guy has but I doubt most people ever look at those seasons with much scrutiny.

The strong team, weak team argument goes both ways as well.

Potvin, if hadn't been injured and then kept playing, he went out on top, could be even higher than around 5th which is where I have him.

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's -28 in 45 games.

That'll happen when a guy plays 30 minutes a night against top lines for a team that goes 14-28 and has a -36 goal differential.

Nice illustration of how not to use +/-.

 

[seventieslord]

there is probably a thread we should be merging with this one.... ugh.

 

[OrrNumber4]

That was the entire point of my post, for the record I ahve Orr, Lidstrom and Bourque in my top 3 and the order really isn't that important. People should take a closer look at all the circumstances around both players careers instead of just counting what is, we know how many all stars each guy has but I doubt most people ever look at those seasons with much scrutiny.

The strong team, weak team argument goes both ways as well.

Potvin, if hadn't been injured and then kept playing, he went out on top, could be even higher than around 5th which is where I have him.

What? Orr is the clear-cut number one...

 

[OrrNumber4]

I don't like the over-emphasis on trophies and awards. Yes, using context (Lidstrom's Norrises were again weaker competition) helps, but people are acting as if awards confer greatness. Bourque isn't a greater player than Lidstrom because he got 7 more all-star nominatinos. Lidstrom isn't a greater player than Bourque because he has a Conn Smythe and two more Norrises.