Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[tarheelhockey]

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

Well, that's what I'm starting to question... at least the degree to which we can say "biggest key".

For one thing, a bunch of articles from 1997 point out that Bowman used both the Lidstrom-Murphy and the Konstantinov-Fetisov pairing against Lindros. The former pairing got more shifts than the latter, but it was very much a combination effort. Murphy was asked about it and specifically said that Lindros simply played too much to be covered with a single pairing. I've never seen this discussed on HF. The accepted narrative is that Lidstrom shut down Lindros, full stop.

Secondly, the strategy against Lindros was to out-finesse him and win the possession game. No doubt Lidstrom was a great fit for that strategy, but so was Murphy. It's hard to say, given the fact that both defensemen were playing basically the same role, that one was a lot more important than the other.

Also, I remembered Lidstrom being better offensively. In point of fact, he scored 1 weak goal in the final 2 series that season and his assists were not impressive. He certainly helped the Wings' transition game, but not at a Conn Smythe level as is often touted around here.

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

I did watch those games, carefully, and was cheering for the Red Wings. Right now I kind of wish I had them on DVD to see how the numbers align with reality.

I know one thing, though: I've never heard a Wings fan praise Murphy for the huge role he played in that Cup run. The focus is always on Lidstrom, to Murphy's near-total exclusion from the narrative. I guess that's the story of Murphy's career, though.

My suspicion is that this is actually an example as to how hindsight and narrative-building can change our recollection of events.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I know one thing, though: I've never heard a Wings fan praise Murphy for the huge role he played in that Cup run. The focus is always on Lidstrom, to Murphy's near-total exclusion from the narrative. I guess that's the story of Murphy's career, though.
.

Murphy was kind of seen as Lidstrom's Rafalski in 1997.

 

[toob]

I know one thing, though: I've never heard a Wings fan praise Murphy for the huge role he played in that Cup run. The focus is always on Lidstrom, to Murphy's near-total exclusion from the narrative. I guess that's the story of Murphy's career, though.

ahem

the simple fact is Murph was just as good as Lids and Vladdy (who both got Conn Smythe talk thrown around) in 97 but Lids went on to have his best years immediately after and Vladdy was cut down in his prime

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

well if your point is that Lids is better defensively than Murphy in general then yes but it is kind of hard to separate their performance against Lindros considering they were both on the same pairing that matched up against him most

furthermore you omit the performance of the forward group as a whole on the Legion of Doom

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

well if your point is that Lids is better defensively than Murphy in general then yes but it is kind of hard to separate their performance against Lindros considering they were both on the same pairing that matched up against him most

Nope. At the time too. The Wings were seen as "the pairing led by Lidstrom" and "the pairing led by Konstantinov."

furthermore you omit the performance of the forward group as a whole on the Legion of Doom

How is this relevant to Lidstrom vs. Murphy? Or are you arguing that the forwards were more important than Lidstrom? I agree that Lidstrom got a lot of help against Lindros, but do think he was the most important single piece.

 

[toob]

Nope. At the time too. The Wings were seen as "the pairing led by Lidstrom" and "the pairing led by Konstantinov."

um you can be a #1 D on the team (between Lids/Vlad at the time) and still your partner can be just as crucial to success

 

[Jag68Sid87]

Bourque's the most complete D man I've seen in the NHL. Never saw Orr. Was more complete than Coffey or Lidstrom. I think he was just flat-out better than Robinson or Potvin, though they were just as complete.

I think an in-your-prime Fetisov would be the stiffest challenge, but he wasn't in his prime when I got a chance to watch him a lot.

Bourque for me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bourque's the most complete D man I've seen in the NHL. Never saw Orr. Was more complete than Coffey or Lidstrom. I think he was just flat-out better than Robinson or Potvin, though they were just as complete.

I think an in-your-prime Fetisov would be the stiffest challenge, but he wasn't in his prime when I got a chance to watch him a lot.

Bourque for me.

How was Robinson more complete than Lidstrom? Lidstrom was/is much better offensively than Robinson ever was.

 

[danincanada]

Murphy was kind of seen as Lidstrom's Rafalski in 1997.

Exactly and in both cases Lidstrom took on the role of the more defensive player in that pairing. Not only was he better defensively but was typically the more defensively responsible player acting as the last man back and would pinch less than the other guy. This enabled both Murphy and Rafalski to take on a bigger offensive role.

As an aside, is there another defenseman in the top 10 or 20 who was actually defense first like Lidstrom? Doug Harvey?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As an aside, is there another defenseman in the top 10 or 20 who was actually defense first like Lidstrom? Doug Harvey?

I would say that Doug Harvey, Nicklas Lidstrom, Larry Robinson, and Chris Chelios were all probably defense-first. So that's 4 of the top 10.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Murphy was kind of seen as Lidstrom's Rafalski in 1997.

That brings up an interesting angle on Lidstrom's defense partners over the years.

Rookie - Brad McCrimmon, who has an amazing record in the "mentor" role
Early seasons - Paul Coffey, who allowed Lidstrom to grow into his defense-first role
Early prime - Larry Murphy, a perfect compliment for the finesse-defense game
Mid prime - Wasn't it Mathieu Dandenault? I can't remember clearly.
Late prime - Brian Rafalski, similar to Murphy a great finesse player
Now - Ian White, another smallish puck mover who thrives in a possession game

Lidstrom always had the luxury of consistent a partner who complimented his game perfectly, which is a massive credit to Ken Holland. It's not a knock on Lidstrom, but it contextualizes his performance, especially in his best seasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Rafalski reference wasn't just about his play with Lidstrom, though it applies there too. In the Devils' best years (2000-2003), Rafalski was Scott Stevens' partner and they were hard-matched against the opponent's top lines. But everyone knew it was Stevens who did the heaviest defensive lifting on the pairing.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

The Bruins from 1988-1999:

1988 -- 4th overall of 21 in NHL
1989 -- 5th overall of 21 in NHL
1990 -- 1st overall of 21 in NHL
1991 -- 5th overall (1st in Wales) of 21 in NHL
1992 -- 9th overall of 22 in NHL
1993 -- 2nd Overall of 24 in NHL
1994 -- T-6th overall of 26 in NHL
1995 -- 6th overall of 26 in NHL
1996 -- 9th overall of 26 in NHL
1997 -- 30th overall of 26 in NHL
1998 -- 10th overall of 26 in NHL
1999 -- 8th overall of 27 in NHL

 

[overpass]

That brings up an interesting angle on Lidstrom's defense partners over the years.

Rookie - Brad McCrimmon, who has an amazing record in the "mentor" role
Early seasons - Paul Coffey, who allowed Lidstrom to grow into his defense-first role
Early prime - Larry Murphy, a perfect compliment for the finesse-defense game
Mid prime - Wasn't it Mathieu Dandenault? I can't remember clearly.
Late prime - Brian Rafalski, similar to Murphy a great finesse player
Now - Ian White, another smallish puck mover who thrives in a possession game

Lidstrom always had the luxury of consistent a partner who complimented his game perfectly, which is a massive credit to Ken Holland. It's not a knock on Lidstrom, but it contextualizes his performance, especially in his best seasons.

Agreed. Except for a few years in the early 2000s - the "mid prime" you identified. Dandenault, Markov, et al weren't exactly ideal partners. Mathieu Schneider might fit the category you identified.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Just a random item I uncovered while looking for those defense pairings, take it as you will:

In 1998, Jaromir Jagr said that the most difficult defense pairing in the league was 37-year-old Ray Bourque and 22-year-old Hal Gill.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just a random item I uncovered while looking for those defense pairings, take it as you will:

In 1998, Jaromir Jagr said that the most difficult defense pairing in the league was 37-year-old Ray Bourque and 22-year-old Hal Gill.

Didn't Jagr also say that Chris Therrien was the defenseman who gave him the most trouble or am I remembering that wrong?

 

[Epsilon]

That brings up an interesting angle on Lidstrom's defense partners over the years.

Rookie - Brad McCrimmon, who has an amazing record in the "mentor" role
Early seasons - Paul Coffey, who allowed Lidstrom to grow into his defense-first role
Early prime - Larry Murphy, a perfect compliment for the finesse-defense game
Mid prime - Wasn't it Mathieu Dandenault? I can't remember clearly.
Late prime - Brian Rafalski, similar to Murphy a great finesse player
Now - Ian White, another smallish puck mover who thrives in a possession game

Lidstrom always had the luxury of consistent a partner who complimented his game perfectly, which is a massive credit to Ken Holland. It's not a knock on Lidstrom, but it contextualizes his performance, especially in his best seasons.

The reason you can't remember clearly is because Lidstrom cycled through a ton of partners, rather than "always having a consistent partner" as you claim. At that point in time, he was so good the Wings were basically sticking him with whatever rookie or over-the-hill veteran they wanted him to compensate for: Mathieu Dandenault, Dmitry Bykov, Danny Markov, and Fredrik Olausson. In the 2001-02 playoffs, it was almost comical watching Vancouver trying to get the West Coast Express on the ice against Chris Chelios and Jiri Fischer and off against Lidstrom and Olausson.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

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.

I'll repost it:

Lidstrom's PPG dropped much less than Bourque's in the post-season - Indicating perhaps Lidstrom 'stepped up' more in the playoffs than Bourque.

.98 = Bourque's Regular Season PPG
.84 = Playoff PPG
17% drop (I believe around a 20% drop is average)

.74 = Lidstrom's Regular Season PPG*
.71 = Playoff PPG
4% drop

A 17% drop in production is good, but a mere 4% drop, especially for a star player, is phenomenal. *It's also worth noting Lidstrom has maintained this for more playoff games than Bourque (258 gms vs. 214 gms).

The kicker, is if we allow for adjusted scoring (the league averaged 6.86 goals / game over Bourque's career and 5.80 goals per game throughout Lidstrom's career), Lidstrom's adjusted Playoff PPG is exactly equal to Bourque's at .84 PPG.

Their offensive production in the playoffs is nearly identical, and few will argue Lidstrom has not been at least a little bit better defensively than Bourque.

Lidstrom has also finished 3rd, 7th, 8th, and 8th amongst •all• players in scoring the years he reached the Finals. And in 07, he still finished 4th amongst all playoff scorers, despite not advancing beyond the Conference Finals.

Lidstrom finishes first in PPG for defensemen with over 100 playoff games over his career, while Bourque is tied for 3rd (with Potvin, behind MacInnis and over 20% behind Coffey).

 

[danincanada]

That brings up an interesting angle on Lidstrom's defense partners over the years.

Rookie - Brad McCrimmon, who has an amazing record in the "mentor" role
Early seasons - Paul Coffey, who allowed Lidstrom to grow into his defense-first role
Early prime - Larry Murphy, a perfect compliment for the finesse-defense game
Mid prime - Wasn't it Mathieu Dandenault? I can't remember clearly.
Late prime - Brian Rafalski, similar to Murphy a great finesse player
Now - Ian White, another smallish puck mover who thrives in a possession game

Lidstrom always had the luxury of consistent a partner who complimented his game perfectly, which is a massive credit to Ken Holland. It's not a knock on Lidstrom, but it contextualizes his performance, especially in his best seasons.

I don't think being paired with Coffey allowed Lidstrom to grow into a defense-first role as much as it forced him to. Someone needed to play that role and it wasn't going to be Coffey.

Lidstrom was paired with Fredrik Olausson in '01-02. That was a nice pairing.

Lidstrom was paired with rookie Dmitri Bykov in '02-03 and won the Norris. Bykov was a fairly steady player but North America was not for him so he went back to Russia after only 1 season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Didn't Jagr also say that Chris Therrien was the defenseman who gave him the most trouble or am I remembering that wrong?

If you have it right, that's a memorably weird thing for him to say.

The reason you can't remember clearly is because Lidstrom cycled through a ton of partners, rather than "always having a consistent partner" as you claim. At that point in time, he was so good the Wings were basically sticking him with whatever rookie or over-the-hill veteran they wanted him to compensate for: Mathieu Dandenault, Dmitry Bykov, Danny Markov, and Fredrik Olausson. In the 2001-02 playoffs, it was almost comical watching Vancouver trying to get the West Coast Express on the ice against Chris Chelios and Jiri Fischer and off against Lidstrom and Olausson.

Dandenault was right in the middle of his career, but your point about cycling partners is taken.

Also, I forgot to note Mathieu Schneider who is yet another in that same mold of partner which perfectly compliments his game.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The reason you can't remember clearly is because Lidstrom cycled through a ton of partners, rather than "always having a consistent partner" as you claim. At that point in time, he was so good the Wings were basically sticking him with whatever rookie or over-the-hill veteran they wanted him to compensate for: Mathieu Dandenault, Dmitry Bykov, Danny Markov, and Fredrik Olausson. In the 2001-02 playoffs, it was almost comical watching Vancouver trying to get the West Coast Express on the ice against Chris Chelios and Jiri Fischer and off against Lidstrom and Olausson.

True. For over 90% of his career, Lidstrom has been paired with an offense-first defenseman, which is pretty unique amongst top-rated Dmen who almost always are paired with a defense-first partner, which allows them more flexibility to their game.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'll repost it:

Lidstrom's PPG dropped much less than Bourque's in the post-season - Indicating perhaps Lidstrom 'stepped up' more in the playoffs than Bourque.

.98 = Bourque's Regular Season PPG
.84 = Playoff PPG
17% drop (I believe around a 20% drop is average)

.74 = Lidstrom's Regular Season PPG*
.71 = Playoff PPG
4% drop

A 17% drop in production is good, but a mere 4% drop, especially for a star player, is phenomenal. *It's also worth noting Lidstrom has maintained this for more playoff games than Bourque (258 gms vs. 214 gms).

The kicker, is if we allow for adjusted scoring (the league averaged 6.86 goals / game over Bourque's career and 5.80 goals per game throughout Lidstrom's career), Lidstrom's adjusted Playoff PPG is exactly equal to Bourque's at .84 PPG.

Another way to express these numbers: when Bourque slipped and Lidstrom stepped up, they were exactly even.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

True. For over 90% of his career, Lidstrom has been paired with an offense-first defenseman, which is pretty unique amongst top-rated Dmen who almost always are paired with a defense-first partner, which allows them more flexibility to their game.

Good point. Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Shore, Potvin, Kelly, Fetisov, an Robinson were all the more offensive member of their pairing basically their whole primes.

Chelios, who was paired with Gary Suter in Chicago, is the only exception I can think of among top 10 guys

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Another way to express these numbers: when Bourque slipped and Lidstrom stepped up, they were exactly even.

Offensively.

 

[tarheelhockey]

True. For over 90% of his career, Lidstrom has been paired with an offense-first defenseman, which is pretty unique amongst top-rated Dmen who almost always are paired with a defense-first partner, which allows them more flexibility to their game.

The explanation for that should be clear to everyone at this point: Lidstrom's most effective in a puck-possession game. It's more important for his partner to be capable of handling the puck cleanly than for him to be a defensive standout. Otherwise Lidstrom's effectiveness in the possession game is compromised, as opponents can simply funnel the play away from him without consequence.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Offensively.

Right. Offensively, Bourque has a clear edge in the regular season and is at least equal in the playoffs (depending on how you consider adjusted stats' treatment of the 80s).