Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Hobnobs]

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 )

No he didnt. He reinvented the rover.

 

[Zil]

No he didnt. He reinvented the rover.

One, this strikes me as an attempt to downplay Orr through semantics rather than facts. Two, serious question, not trying to patronize you, did you actually watch Orr play?

 

[Hobnobs]

One, this strikes me as an attempt to downplay Orr through semantics rather than facts. Two, serious question, not trying to patronize you, did you actually watch Orr play?

Why do you say that? I didnt say he was bad or anything even remotely like that but he did play like a rover. I didnt watch him play then I've watched plenty of him afterwards though so its not like Im sitting here and basing this of stats and hearsay.

 

[Zil]

Why do you say that? I didnt say he was bad or anything even remotely like that but he did play like a rover. I didnt watch him play then I've watched plenty of him afterwards though so its not like Im sitting here and basing this of stats and hearsay.

It strikes me as inaccurate to call Orr a rover. He invented what we recognize today as the game of the offensive defenseman, but he also proved you can play that game while playing elite defense. He essentially added a new dimension to what an elite defenseman can do and others followed in his footsteps. Do you consider Park, Robinson, and Potvin rovers? I might possibly consider Coffey or someone like Mike Green as a rover, but not Orr.

As to the relevance of you having seen him play: It's nice to watch film. But without having watched hockey before, during, and after his era, I would contend that you can't really have a full understanding on how Orr changed the game and the position of defense.

 

[toob]

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.

this so much

Add the arguments on Hart trophy voting although i think it has been pretty well argued that Bourque had both a more favorable team and league situation to do better in voting.

Take the example of Pronger i would say that he has been a close 2nd to Lids as the best defenseman for the last decade or so but the awards gap between the two is huge. Now Pronger has been injured far more frequently and he also doesnt have the same consistency aside from injuries so you have to give credit to Lids for playing a game that avoids the injuries and playing so consistently but on a per game basis Pronger is basically just as good as Lidstrom.

By the way ive seen people call out Lids for getting awards on reputation and maybe it is true but i wouldnt be surprised at all if Bourque got the same treatment. The media fawned over this guy when he was with the Avs in the 01 playoffs though i always thought Blake was the clear #1.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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

No, it was in response to a poster who said Bourque was clearly a better playoff performer than Lidstrom.

1988-1991 were legendary playoff years for Bourque, no question. But you can also say Lidstrom was the best player on two Cup finalists as well (2002 and 2009)

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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.

This post is pretty useless when you consider that on this specific board, it should be implied that we all know what happened in the playoffs every year.

And I don't buy into that whole "Our loss was justified because at least it was to a SC Champion"

I'm pretty sure the players themselves feel just as dejected at losing to the Sharks in the 1st Round as they would Losing to the Devils in Round One.

Like, when the Devils raised the Cup, I doubt Bourque said "Well, at least we lost to the Champs in our 1st round clobbering".

I think it's just a way for fans to justify their team losing, but in reality, it really doesnt matter. Those dominant teams who ousted Bourque also had 1st round flameouts against teams like the Rangers, Islanders and Kings.

I'm not saying Bourque is at fault. I'm saying that outside of the 1988-1991 timeframe, and the 2001 Cup run, he clearly wasnt a problem or a solution.

He was kinda just there, I guess, which can be said of all those Bruins teams overall.

 

[Hobnobs]

It strikes me as inaccurate to call Orr a rover. He invented what we recognize today as the game of the offensive defenseman, but he also proved you can play that game while playing elite defense. He essentially added a new dimension to what an elite defenseman can do and others followed in his footsteps. Do you consider Park, Robinson, and Potvin rovers? I might possibly consider Coffey or someone like Mike Green as a rover, but not Orr.

As to the relevance of you having seen him play: It's nice to watch film. But without having watched hockey before, during, and after his era, I would contend that you can't really have a full understanding on how Orr changed the game and the position of defense.

Rovers went where they were needed. Players like Orr and to some extent Potvin did that too. Now they did have a fixed position which is the difference but Orr would roam the ice and add to the game where it was needed. Roverish play.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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

Wow. Three out of 21 playoff years.

That's impressive.

 

[danincanada]

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!

I can't totally fault Bourque for not winning but you also can't just assume he would have won more in a different situation. All we can go by is what these players actually accomplished and Lidstrom accomplished more, both individually and as part of a team. Somehow in this debate the Bourque side wants to act like end of the season all-star nominations are more important than real hardware such as Norris Trophies, Cups and a Conn Smythe. I have a hard time believing you would take this stance in any other debate. It's an argument specifically designed to attempt to hold Bourque in a higher light but it simply doesn't work. These guys play the game to win. Bourque never had to deal with a Cup hangover and never had that target on his back the next season after winning it all. That changes things too.

Bringing up the Avs/Red Wings rivalry is interesting because what the Avs always had, other than '02 (Hasek), was a huge advantage in goal with Roy. Forsberg was a noted Red Wings killer but Roy was usually the real difference maker. Detroit needed a premier defensive player like Lidstrom to make up for a lack of a superstar goalie. Colorado had Roy, New Jersey had Brodeur and Dallas had Belfour. Detroit had Vernon and Osgood and that's where Lidstrom was the real difference maker for them.

 

[Hobnobs]

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!

Bourque didnt play the whole series vs the wings and his two assists isnt exactly what I would call an edge vs lidströms 2 assists. Avs didnt win vs Detroit because of Bourque and Detroit didnt lose because of Lidström.

You talk like Oilers, Isles and Pens were invincible and the only teams to beat the Bruins. How about the '89 season? '93? '94? '85?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Wow. Three out of 21 playoff years.

That's impressive.

Considering there have only been 19 occurrences since expansion in which a defenseman has posted 20 points in a single playoff - with Ray Bourque and Denis "in the middle of a dynasty" Potvin being the only ones to do it three times - yes, it is impressive.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Wow. Three out of 21 playoff years.

That's impressive.

Hmmmm... Bourque went past the second round 7 times:

1983 - 17 games, 8-15-23
1988 - 23 games, 3-18-21
1990 - 17 games, 5-12-17
1991 - 19 games, 7-18-25
1992 - 12 games, 3-6-9
2000 - 13 games, 1-8-9
2001 - 21 games, 4-6-10

TOTAL: 122 games, 31-83-114 (0.93 ppg)

Bolded are categories where he led all defensemen.

Yeah, I actually would say that's pretty damn impressive. Even if we eliminated his other 92 games of playoff experience, these runs alone would have him 13th all time in playoff points from the blue line.


By comparison, Lidstrom went past the 2nd round 8 times:

1995 - 18 games, 4-12-16
1996 - 19 games, 5-9-14
1997 - 20 games, 2-6-8
1998 - 22 games, 6-13-19
2002 - 23 games, 5-11-16
2007 - 18 games, 4-14-18
2008 - 22 games, 3-10-13
2009 - 21 games, 4-12-16

TOTAL: 163 games, 33-87-120 (0.74 ppg)


Just looking at it for the first time, I'm really surprised at:

1) The fact that Bourque has been to the 3rd+ round only 1 time fewer than Lidstrom.

2) The fact that Bourque has just as many runs as the league's dominant playoff scorer.

3) How often Lidstrom placed behind his own teammates in the major offensive categories -- not only Coffey but Murphy, Chelios, Kronwall, and even Mironov. This didn't happen to Bourque until he was an old man with the Avs, with Ozolinsh and Blake in their primes.

I haven't adjusted the numbers for era, but I'd imagine that adjustment won't wash out that huge PPG advantage for Bourque. Given his offensive advantage, even giving a slight defensive edge to Lidstrom leaves them more or less even overall. If you don't buy that Lidstrom was better defensively, Bourque is ahead. I can't see a reasonable argument whereby Lidstrom definitively surpasses Bourque here.

The key difference between their playoff resumes is not productivity, unless you think Lidstrom has some kind of huge defensive edge. The difference is that team circumstances allowed Lidstrom to win 3 Cups and a Conn Smythe in sweeps while a prime Bourque ran into the Oilers twice. Beyond that, they were damn near identical in their major playoff runs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You also need to remember that in the early 80s, 16/21 teams made the playoffs, so guys on good teams basically had first round chumps to run up the stats on.

Also, didn't someone look at Bourque and Lidstrom's playoff totals and find they adjusted to almost the same thing? I forget the exact math used.

 

[danincanada]

3) How often Lidstrom placed behind his own teammates in the major offensive categories -- not only Coffey but Murphy, Chelios, Kronwall, and even Mironov. This didn't happen to Bourque until he was an old man with the Avs, with Ozolinsh and Blake in their primes.[/B]

You're really nitpicking here. Lidstrom was unquestionably the Red Wings top defenseman from 1997 on in those playoff runs. That's all that really matters here.

I don't know what you are talking about when you bring up Mironov. In the '98 playoffs he posted 3 assists in 7 games while Lidstrom posted 19 points in 22 games.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You also need to remember that in the early 80s, 16/21 teams made the playoffs, so guys on good teams basically had first round chumps to run up the stats on.

In '83, the 50-20-10 Bruins beat the 34-34-12 Nords and the 38-29-13 Sabres before losing to the 42-26-12 Islanders.

In '88, the 44-30-6 Bruins beat the 37-32-11 Sabres, 45-22-13 Habs and 38-36-6 Devils before losing to the 44-25-11 Oilers.

Both seem like pretty ordinary sets of opponents, at least at face value. It's hard for me to adjust back to the mentality that a 34-win season could be legitimately .500 and not "Bettman .500".

Also, didn't someone look at Bourque and Lidstrom's playoff totals and find they adjusted to almost the same thing? I forget the exact math used.

That wouldn't be a huge surprise, but it still leaves them even in simple productivity with Bourque being much more important to the success of his team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You're really nitpicking here. Lidstrom was unquestionably the Red Wings top defenseman from 1997 on in those playoff runs. That's all that really matters here.

No, it's not all that matters. In 1997 he was paired primarily with Larry Murphy, a HOF'er who tied him in goals and outscored him in assists, and was +16 to Lidstrom's +12. That deserves more than a wave of the hand.

And that's to say nothing of having Konstantinov, who had just finished 4th and 2nd in Norris voting in consecutive seasons, and Slava Fetisov on the second pairing.

I'm not going to sit here and say Lidstrom wasn't their top defenseman, as he certainly had a greater impact in any given game. But he was not "unquestionably the top defenseman" in the same sense as Bourque, not in 1997.

I don't know what you are talking about when you bring up Mironov. In the '98 playoffs he posted 3 assists in 7 games while Lidstrom posted 19 points in 22 games.

My mistake, I was looking at Mironov's '97 when he had 1-10-11 with Anaheim. Scratch that one from the list.

 

[mooseOAK*]

In short, Bourque would make mistakes by taking more offensive gambles and Lidstrom rarely does and Lidstrom is better defensively.

 

[tfong]

In short, Bourque would make mistakes by taking more offensive gambles and Lidstrom rarely does and Lidstrom is better defensively.

+1

Imagine if they played together

Bourque can takeover games but Lidstrom prevents his team from losing is my comparison.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Actually, I am going to challenge my own memory here.

At some point in Lidstrom vs X debates, the 1997 Finals are always brought up as evidence of his playoff and defensive dominance. But, as noted before, Murphy put up better numbers.

I was ready to write that off as stats just not capturing performance quality very accurately, but took one last moment to review the 1997 Finals box scores.

Game 1
Murphy 0-2-2, +4
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +2

Game 2
Murphy 0-1-1, +2
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +2

Game 3
Murphy 0-0-0, +3
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +1

Game 4
Murphy 0-0-0, +1
Lidstrom 1-0-1, +1



TOTAL
Murphy 0-3-3, +10
Lidstrom 1-0-1, +6

I had no recollection that Murphy was, statistically, that much better in the '97 Finals... so I don't have a ready explanation for it. Murphy's +/- is almost exactly a reflection of the Wings' margin of victory in each game (2, 2, 5, 1), and somehow even or higher in every game than his defense partner. Lidstrom's only offensive contribution was the first goal in the final game, which the New York Times described as "stoppable".

Based on my own memory I'm hesitant to say Murphy was better than Lidstrom, but that certainly appears to have been the case.

edit: Looking at the much-hyped previous series against Colorado, the pair had virtually identical numbers in every game except Game 2, when Lidstrom had a couple of assists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually, I am going to challenge my own memory here.

At some point in Lidstrom vs X debates, the 1997 Finals are always brought up as evidence of his playoff and defensive dominance. But, as noted before, Murphy put up better numbers.

I was ready to write that off as stats just not capturing performance quality very accurately, but took one last moment to review the 1997 Finals box scores.

Game 1
Murphy 0-2-2, +4
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +2

Game 2
Murphy 0-1-1, +2
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +2

Game 3
Murphy 0-0-0, +3
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +1

Game 4
Murphy 0-0-0, +1
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +1



TOTAL
Murphy 0-3-3, +10
Lidstrom 1-0-1, +6

I had no recollection that Murphy was, statistically, that much better in the '97 Finals... so I don't have a ready explanation for it. Murphy's +/- is almost exactly a reflection of the Wings' margin of victory in each game (2, 2, 5, 1), and somehow even or higher in every game than his defense partner. Lidstrom's only offensive contribution was the first goal in the final game, which the New York Times described as "stoppable".

Based on my own memory I'm hesitant to say Murphy was better than Lidstrom, but that certainly appears to have been the case.

edit: Looking at the much-hyped previous series against Colorado, the pair had virtually identical numbers in every game except Game 2, when Lidstrom had a couple of assists.

What about the fact that Lidstrom, not Murphy, was the biggest key to neutralizing Eric Lindros?

 

[danincanada]

No, it's not all that matters. In 1997 he was paired primarily with Larry Murphy, a HOF'er who tied him in goals and outscored him in assists, and was +16 to Lidstrom's +12. That deserves more than a wave of the hand.

And that's to say nothing of having Konstantinov, who had just finished 4th and 2nd in Norris voting in consecutive seasons, and Slava Fetisov on the second pairing.

I'm not going to sit here and say Lidstrom wasn't their top defenseman, as he certainly had a greater impact in any given game. But he was not "unquestionably the top defenseman" in the same sense as Bourque, not in 1997.

As you probably know Detroit got Murphy from Toronto near the deadline for future considerations. Leafs fans were all over him due to his skating yet when he joined Detroit and was paired with Lidstrom he appeared to regain his HOF form. The two made a great pairing but there was no doubt Lidstrom was the lead guy. Anyone who watched back then could tell that, despite what the statistics show.

The way Lidstrom played in the '97 playoffs was no different than any other Cup run IMO. He was Bowman's go to guy in every situation. He was better than Konstantinov offensively and we all know who Bowman chose to match up against the most feared line in hockey in the finals. The fact that Konstantinov finished higher in Norris voting just goes to show how underrated Lidstrom was back then. People liked big hits from a dman more than a defender who simply took the puck away and passed it up ice to his forwards even though the latter is often more effective.

Again, Lidstrom had a better surrounding cast than Bourque and he won multiple Cups while Bourque didn't. You can't punish Lidstrom for that and you also can't assume Bourque would have won in the same situation - assumptions like lead to a slippery slope. We can only really go by what actually did happen.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As you probably know Detroit got Murphy from Toronto near the deadline for future considerations. Leafs fans were all over him due to his skating yet when he joined Detroit and was paired with Lidstrom he appeared to regain his HOF form. The two made a great pairing but there was no doubt Lidstrom was the lead guy. Anyone who watched back then could tell that, despite what the statistics show.

The way Lidstrom played in the '97 playoffs was no different than any other Cup run IMO. He was Bowman's go to guy in every situation. He was better than Konstantinov offensively and we all know who Bowman chose to match up against the most feared line in hockey in the finals. The fact that Konstantinov finished higher in Norris voting just goes to show how underrated Lidstrom was back then. People liked big hits from a dman more than a defender who simply took the puck away and passed it up ice to his forwards even though the latter is often more effective.

Again, Lidstrom had a better surrounding cast than Bourque and he won multiple Cups while Bourque didn't. You can't punish Lidstrom for that and you also can't assume Bourque would have won in the same situation - assumptions like lead to a slippery slope. We can only really go by what actually did happen.

Lidstrom clearly wasn't as effective offensively in 1997 as he was for the other 3 Cups.

 

[danincanada]

Actually, I am going to challenge my own memory here.

At some point in Lidstrom vs X debates, the 1997 Finals are always brought up as evidence of his playoff and defensive dominance. But, as noted before, Murphy put up better numbers.

I was ready to write that off as stats just not capturing performance quality very accurately, but took one last moment to review the 1997 Finals box scores.

Game 1
Murphy 0-2-2, +4
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +2

Game 2
Murphy 0-1-1, +2
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +2

Game 3
Murphy 0-0-0, +3
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +1

Game 4
Murphy 0-0-0, +1
Lidstrom 0-0-0, +1



TOTAL
Murphy 0-3-3, +10
Lidstrom 1-0-1, +6

I had no recollection that Murphy was, statistically, that much better in the '97 Finals... so I don't have a ready explanation for it. Murphy's +/- is almost exactly a reflection of the Wings' margin of victory in each game (2, 2, 5, 1), and somehow even or higher in every game than his defense partner. Lidstrom's only offensive contribution was the first goal in the final game, which the New York Times described as "stoppable".

Based on my own memory I'm hesitant to say Murphy was better than Lidstrom, but that certainly appears to have been the case.

edit: Looking at the much-hyped previous series against Colorado, the pair had virtually identical numbers in every game except Game 2, when Lidstrom had a couple of assists.

This an example as to why we actually have to watch games instead of just reading from a stats sheet.

 

[danincanada]

Lidstrom clearly wasn't as effective offensively in 1997 as he was for the other 3 Cups.

Based on the statistics I guess I have to agree. He was still a huge part in the transition game even if the points didn't always follow.