Lidstrom vs. Harvey for #2 Dman of all time?

[RECsGuy*]

Bourque is the better point producer. Lidstrom is better at everything else.

 

[RorschachWJK]

That's the same as my list. However, I could totally accept Shore being placed below Bourque, and maybe Lidstrom ahead of him (Shore). I could not, personally, put Lidstrom ahead of Bourque though. Absolutely no way.

This echos my thoughts quite well. So, not top-10 but Lidström is a top-20 player, though.

 

[Darrelle Lundqvist]

He's definitely a top 10 player imo. What he's accomplished is just absurd.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

This comparison has been done to death, but here's some quick observations...

All-Star Team voting shows Bourque was among the game's elite for a longer period of time. 13 1st Team and 6 2nd Team for Bourque compared to 10 1st Team and 2 2nd Team for Lidstrom.

While Lidstrom has more Norris trophies it appears that Bourque had stiffer competition. There are no defensemen in Lidstrom's prime that match up to the caliber of Chelios, Coffey, and MacInnis. The 2nd best defenseman of Lidstrom's generation, Pronger, had injury problems and there were some seasons where Pronger would have likely stole a Norris from Lidstrom had he remained healthy and maintained the pace he was on. To be fair, two of Bourque's All Star finishes were also against this weaker competition.

The Cup counting argument makes the two look a lot farther apart than they really are. Bourque was a fantastic playoff performer, and it just so happens that when his teams were at their best they ran into the dynasty Oilers twice in the Cup Finals and the mini-dynasty Penguins twice in the Conference Finals (both better teams than anyone Lidstrom beat when he won his Cups). In those 4 runs Bourque logged huge minutes and was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3rd in points on his team. Fair to say that Bourque's play was at a "Conn Smythe level" some years even though he didn't actually win one.

 

[Epsilon]

Talk about a thread that isn't needed or wanted. Just read the Lidstrom vs. Harvey thread (which ended up being about half about Lidstrom vs. Bourque anyway).

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I'll have to make that top 15-20 list sometime but I will probably start with a top 25 list since 1970 (guys who played up until then) since i honestly have a hard time slotting guys like shore who I never saw play and the guys before him are even harder with the quality of reporting and records in terms of tape to watch and the rest of it makes it virtually impossible.

I'm also more of a longevity guy than pure peak so I will put that into my criteria and remarks on the matter as well.

Comments are welcome when I do it because we are here for discussion after all.

I have a week of holidays in late August so maybe I will have it done by then.

Lidstrom, Orr, Bourque, Potvin, Robinson, MacInnis are 6 Dmen that definitely make the post 1967 top 25 list.

Edit Chelios also makes that list.

If you're a longevity guy then I don't know how you can put Lidstrom over Bourque. Bourque has the 2nd best longevity of all time after Gordie Howe. 19 seasons as an end of year All Star, 13 of which were 1st Team, so he was a top 2 Dman for 13 years and a top 4 for 19.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

If it's who had the better hockey career (as opposed to just NHL), international play would weigh this heavily in Lidstrom's favour.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm struggling to come up with 10 players for whom after looking at the body of their careers, their accomplishments, awards, and "greatness" I can put past Lidstrom. Here's what I've got so far:

1) Gretzky
2) Orr
3) Lemieux
4) Howe
5) M. Richard
6) Bobby Hull

I don't know who else to put up there.

And that's the problem in a nutshell. There is no mythical top-10 level that one can achieve. 10 is a completely arbitrary number that we are fond of using for rankings, but the reality is you could take any of a dozen players after Richard/Hull and make an argument for them at #7.

These threads typically begin with someone setting an arbitrary standard (not calling you out on this personally, it's just part of the template) then a bunch of fans of each player jumping up to try and argue that their favorite is "clearly" inside that arbitrary limit. Eventually we'll get down to arguing over Corsi, adjusted point totals, ice time differential, etc while not really ever crossing our own battle lines.

To me, personally, Lidstrom belongs in a class of great defensemen that includes Potvin, Harvey, Bourque, Robinson, Chelios, and maybe Coffey, Stevens and MacInnis. That's about as specific as we really need to be on the subject.

 

[Pear Juice]

In my eyes he's definitely there or thereabouts. Currently listing him on the same spot as Bourque (10/11). Also, I find it really difficult to make these total lists including all positions. Slotting in the big 5 goalies (Sawchuk, Plante, Roy, Hasek, Brodeur) takes up lots of positions. I just can't separate them by too many positions, and then the discrepancy between other players becomes too big. I'd rather make lists of players by position (goal, defence, forward). In that case Lidström's is behind Orr, then the differences get more subtle.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think once you get to the top 20-30, you're getting into the sort of arguments that are just silly. I think Lidstrom is a top 5 D-man and you could put him anywhere in the top 20-25 and come up with a legit argument if you tried hard enough..

 

[Pear Juice]

If it's who had the better hockey career (as opposed to just NHL), international play would weigh this heavily in Lidstrom's favour.

Lidström did score the game-winning goal in the '06 Olympics finals, and he was splendid during that tournament. And he contributed to the goldwinning WHC team in 1991. But in general Lidström has a quite weak international resume if you ask me. It's not like he's a Forsberg, Sundin or Selänne. This is due to the Red Wings being perennial playoff contenders which means Lidström has represented Sweden in very few World Championships. Contrary to Forsberg, Lidström usually declined playing for the Tre Kronor when he got eliminated early from the Stanley Cup playoffs. This is part of why he's not held as highly by the man-on-the-street in Sweden. We simply have not seen him play very much due to his amazing NHL career. The average Swede still doesn't follow the NHL very closely.

Bourque on the other hand has performed in 3 Canada Cups and one Olympic tournament. I'm not sure if they're that far from each other concerning international play. Lidström's probably favoured, but I think it's stretching it to say he's heavily favoured.

 

[Ogopogo*]

No, he is #15.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lidström did score the game-winning goal in the '06 Olympics finals, and he was splendid during that tournament. And he contributed to the goldwinning WHC team in 1991. But in general Lidström has a quite weak international resume if you ask me. It's not like he's a Forsberg, Sundin or Selänne. This is due to the Red Wings being perennial playoff contenders which means Lidström has represented Sweden in very few World Championships. Contrary to Forsberg, Lidström usually declined playing for the Tre Kronor when he got eliminated early from the Stanley Cup playoffs. This is part of why he's not held as highly by the man-on-the-street in Sweden. We simply have not seen him play very much due to his amazing NHL career. The average Swede still doesn't follow the NHL very closely.

Bourque on the other hand has performed in 3 Canada Cups and one Olympic tournament. I'm not sure if they're that far from each other concerning international play. Lidström's probably favoured, but I think it's stretching it to say he's heavily favoured.

Around here the guys who play for the Worlds are the guys trying to be the best of the losers, though.

I don't put a lot of stock at all into Worlds.

 

[Gobias Industries]

Bourque, top-4 longer...that's all that matters to me when you talk career..

 

[Pear Juice]

Around here the guys who play for the Worlds are the guys trying to be the best of the losers, though.

I don't put a lot of stock at all into Worlds.

I understand your point, and I know that it's not as big a deal overseas. Interest is definitely diminishing here in europe the last years aswell. To me international play is extremely fascinating as cultural differences between teams are more well-defined. I'd love to see more best-on-best international tournaments, but I know the NHL is really trying to make the Hockey world go in the opposite direction. Personally I think that is a shame. There's an interesting discussion here about North American sports and international play, however, back on-topic.

I guess we could disregard the Worlds aswell, however that just makes Lidströms case against Bourque even weaker. My main point was that Lidström actually doesn't have a very strong international resume. When he's been there he's been good, but he's just not played a whole lot of international play.

 

[Uncle Rotter]

Lidström did score the game-winning goal in the '06 Olympics finals, and he was splendid during that tournament. And he contributed to the goldwinning WHC team in 1991. But in general Lidström has a quite weak international resume if you ask me. It's not like he's a Forsberg, Sundin or Selänne. This is due to the Red Wings being perennial playoff contenders which means Lidström has represented Sweden in very few World Championships. Contrary to Forsberg, Lidström usually declined playing for the Tre Kronor when he got eliminated early from the Stanley Cup playoffs. This is part of why he's not held as highly by the man-on-the-street in Sweden. We simply have not seen him play very much due to his amazing NHL career. The average Swede still doesn't follow the NHL very closely.

Bourque on the other hand has performed in 3 Canada Cups and one Olympic tournament. I'm not sure if they're that far from each other concerning international play. Lidström's probably favoured, but I think it's stretching it to say he's heavily favoured.

Now that you mention it, they're a lot more even. There was a Canada Cup I didn't give Bourque credit for

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Lidstrom may end up with more to show for his career when all is said and done, so I might have to vote Lidstrom depending on which criteria I feel I should focus on, but I doubt I'll ever relent from my opinion that Bourque was simply better, and for longer, and thus is the "better" player between the two.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, he is #15.

Pfft, I have him at #13.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Pfft, I have him at #13.

Out of curiousity, who did he pass in your mind since 2009?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Pfft, I have him at #13.

That is ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself as a hockey fan for putting him above #14.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Out of curiousity, who did he pass in your mind since 2009?

In 2009, I already had him ahead of Mikita and Kelly. In retrospect, maybe that was high, maybe not. But I think by now, you'd be hard pressed not to have Lidstrom above them.

Other than that, I only have one goalie (Roy) above Lidstrom, but ranking goalies among skaters is somewhat arbitrary.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Out of curiousity, who did he pass in your mind since 2009?

Morenz

 

[BraveCanadian]

In 2009, I already had him ahead of Mikita and Kelly. In retrospect, maybe that was high, maybe not. But I think by now, you'd be hard pressed not to have Lidstrom above them.

Other than that, I only have one goalie (Roy) above Lidstrom, but ranking goalies among skaters is somewhat arbitrary.

When are you going to take over the top 100 so it can get updated?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Bourque still. Who knows in 2 years.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Lidstrom's not done yet but, at this point, it is Bourque