Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[Victorias]

Yeah...I mean, four Vezina trophies, two more top 3 finishes, three top-3 finishes for the Hart...isn't really a reputation thing.

A lot of folks point to the guys like Derian Hatcher and the like being thrust out of the league by the game play changes...folks don't take into account how difficult it became for goaltenders with a more open and faster paced game. In part, the same way that we recently talked about Dryden struggling to deal with east-west movement of the Soviets, similar concept on the other side of the big sleep...

It really hurt a lot of guys. The few that were really adaptable shined on both sides...Brodeur, Luongo, Kipper...once those guys started to wear down, woof, look what the cat dragged into the league because there was a bunch of guys that developed under old rules and then they changed the rules when their careers got real.

This is why I find the concept of positional and game evolution so appealing to research. Something that gets shooed away as a reputation vote is actually an even greater claim to stardom than many of us realize...

I wasn’t suggesting that Brodeur or Lidstrom won their trophies based on reputation. I was suggesting that Bourque, Chelios, etc were Norris finalists at ~40 based perhaps on reputation. And if not? Well, that’s still another argument in favor of Bourque.

What I was suggesting is that Lidstrom and Brodeur benefited from decreased competition. e.g. Brodeur did not touch the Vezina or finish as a Hart finalist until his best contemporaries were retired/retiring. And they were retiring not because they couldn’t adapt but because they were 7 years older in the case of Hasek, Roy, and Belfour and 5 years older in the case of Joseph. Meanwhile, Luongo was 7 years younger and Lundqvist 9 years younger. That left a perfect gap for MB. You can give him credit for adapting if you want, but you also have to acknowledge his luck.

Same applies for NL: Bourque, Coffey, and Chelios were all born between 1960-1962, Macinnis 1963, and Stevens 1964. Closer to Lidstrom (1970), there is just Leetch (1968).

 

[Michael Farkas]

You can give him credit for adapting if you want, but you also have to acknowledge his luck.

The "luck" that he had in going against possibly the #1 and #2 goalies of all time in the same era as him?

The whole "didn't touch a Vezina..." thing is another really poor framing...

Before he won his first Vezina. His Vezina finishes are: 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5 (every year he was a full time starter). And his Hart finishes: 4, 4, 5 (traditionally, not a goalie-first award).

 

[Victorias]

The "luck" that he had in going against possibly the #1 and #2 goalies of all time in the same era as him?

The whole "didn't touch a Vezina..." thing is another really poor framing...

Before he won his first Vezina. His Vezina finishes are: 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5 (every year he was a full time starter). And his Hart finishes: 4, 4, 5 (traditionally, not a goalie-first award).

You’ve made my point for me, cheers.

He was a Hall of Fame goalie but not a “4 Vezina” goalie. He won 4 Vezinas in 5 years against minimal competition apart from Luongo (who deserved at least one of those). When he DID have elite competition, he didn’t win any individual accolades.

And why am I even saying this? Because you introduced him as a 4 time Vezina winner and Hart finalist, not me.

Similarly, Lidstrom does not win 7 Norris trophies if he is born 10 years earlier (and makes it across the Atlantic).

 

[MadLuke]

That a good point having 2 second place to peak Hasek balance beating Nabokov or question for beating Kiprusoff/Luongo in 04.

you go .927, 1.88 GAA, 37W-14L, 35.6 GSAA has a recent cup winner and not win, a cup you won with a .927, 1.67 GAA performance not winning the Smythe to Claude Lemieux, it did go both ways a bit or loosing the Smythe to Giguere when you went .934, 1.65 GAA, superbe in the final series, 9.7 GSAA in the deepest of the dpe lpaying for the Devils.

This conversation just reinforce this message:

Players you think are better or worse than the evidence would suggest?

Since this forum tends to be pretty rigorous in its analysis of players statistically, I'd be interested to know what are some players that you think are better or worse despite little to no evidence to back up your claim? Just based on your own knowledge and what you've seen with your own eyes...

forums.hfboards.com

quite well, Brodeur is probably better than some evidence would suggest like looking at a 3-3-4-5-7-10 career save percentage finish or having the most lost of all time and probably worst than some other evidence suggest, like never winning a Smythe on 3 cup wins with all of them not necessarily going to Top 30 of all time players tier.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You’ve made my point for me, cheers.

He was a Hall of Fame goalie but not a “4 Vezina” goalie. He won 4 Vezinas in 5 years against minimal competition apart from Luongo (who deserved at least one of those). When he DID have elite competition, he didn’t win any individual accolades.

And why am I even saying this? Because you introduced him as a 4 time Vezina winner and Hart finalist, not me.

Similarly, Lidstrom does not win 7 Norris trophies if he is born 10 years earlier (and makes it across the Atlantic).

Just to offset this, I think that in a "just" world, Brodeur is a 6x time Vezina winner. He should have won over Hasek in 1997 and won over Carey in '96. He also should have won the Smythe in '03, but was unlucky to not have the luxury of wearing several mattresses and playing against an expansion team in the Conference Final.

He was also unlucky to go against the best playoff goaltending performance since the lockout when he faced Quick in 2012.

He's especially unlucky to have buzzwords used against him in a most unsophisticated way ("trap", "system"), where as somehow other goalies, say, Patrick Roy for instance, avoid that...it serves to confuse fans that tend to look at things more superficially...

 

[MadLuke]

playing against an expansion team in the Conference Final.

That because they were a 7th seed that removed Detroit-Dallas from the west themselves and really unfair. Facing Detroit-Dallas-NewJersey of that year is probably the 3 toughest team, they were Colorado beating Minnesota to have the perfect 4.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not that that's a "gotcha" of any sort, because that proves the slippery slope nature of this style of debate. But your protest of "they had to face tough teams in the playoffs" versus mine of "they were fortunate to play a team with absolutely zero offense besides young Gaborik because they were an expansion team" still doesn't even tip the scale. One is expected, one is not. Even if I agree with your premise...

 

[MadLuke]

If we just put it like this they faced the number # offence

Ducks : 1-6-24-14
Devils: 7-13-3-23

or
1-6-14-24
3-7-13-23

One could say Brodeur was lucky to face the Ducks in the finals.... and passing over how good the Senators were in that era.

 

[Michael Farkas]

See: slippery slope

 

[67 others]

Just to offset this, I think that in a "just" world, Brodeur is a 6x time Vezina winner. He should have won over Hasek in 1997 and won over Carey in '96. He also should have won the Smythe in '03, but was unlucky to not have the luxury of wearing several mattresses and playing against an expansion team in the Conference Final.

He was also unlucky to go against the best playoff goaltending performance since the lockout when he faced Quick in 2012.

He's especially unlucky to have buzzwords used against him in a most unsophisticated way ("trap", "system"), where as somehow other goalies, say, Patrick Roy for instance, avoid that...it serves to confuse fans that tend to look at things more superficially...

I look at the trap and trapezoid different for Brodeur than other goalies. This was a goalie so good at puck handling that the NHL changed the rules for goalies handling the puck lol

He made that system more viable for jersey by his puckhandling alone

 

[67 others]

In any case the Oilers lost to Joel Otto, Dan Quinn, and Doug Risebrough in '86.

*Shrugs

It just helps illustrate the silliness of folks celebrating Lidstrom's cups to point out janney and Linesman were not Fedorov/Yzerman.

Prime Bourque on those red wings teams wins all the same cups, and probably propels them to more. Lidstrom on those 80's Bruins finalists is just a guy on a team.

Seeing Sakic have a career year in points, +/- and almost winning the Selke with Bourque making outlet passes to him and then Sakic verbally giving Bourque 100% credit for his outlier season make me wonder what could have been had Bourque been as absolutely horseshoed as Lidstrom in landing with such superstars for his entire career. A ton of Avs players had their best performances ever with Ray guarding the backend for just 1 year. Shame the bruins were so cheap.

But yeah, undeniable. 2nd best Dman ever after Orr for career achievements

 

[wetcoast]

I mean, it’s an extended downturn in the numbers in that graph. I think slump is a fair word. Certainly it was a concern at the time, with a very noticeable decline in star talent between ‘95 and ‘00 (even after correcting for injuries which were a big factor)

I see the graph and can't help but wonder about the quality of the missing players though, can we determine at all if they weren't for the most part players that just weren't that good really so the stars still were there?

In other words I'm not sure what we can conclude from the graph.

At the same time though, we’ve also seen a rather extreme decline in talent from other provinces, especially Quebec which used to be a factory for NHL stars. BC goes up, Quebec goes down. You’re back where you started. Germany goes up, Slovakia goes down. Sweden goes up, Russia goes down.

Sure there is always some ebb and flow but look at Sweden now with Dmen being so prominent in the league right now and during Lidstrom's time there were some deferent difference makers from the Swedes like Zetterberg and Forsberg.

But the big gorilla is Canada, and we know that the hockey playing Canadian population has been shrinking steadily and that hockey participation is withering in many areas. For a country that dominates the sport the way Canada does, to take a step or two back is the equivalent of losing entire European countries from the landscape. It’s a big, big deal that directly impacts the NHL product and the hockey world generally.

I think the Big Gorillia is the emergence of players from the USA, which started when Bourque entered the league but really swung into high gear in the 90s and today is extremely strong and deep.

Is it complete nonsense, though? Look at the late 90s draft classes. The 1999 class for example was just stunningly void of talent outside a literal handful of players.

Circa 2000, the development system was filtering prospects for height and physicality first, skill second. That had consequences for the talent pipeline. A guy like Martin St Louis couldn’t even find a job in the league at first, while a bunch of Donald Brashear clones were carving out long careers. A guy like Derian Hatcher could be considered a model defenseman… and prospects drafted high because they resembled Derian Hatcher. After a few years of that, the league was just about dead for lack of commercial appeal. It’s not a coincidence.

Now there’s a legitimate question as to whether this is really a “talent pool” argument or something different. But in terms of the NHL player pool, I think it’s totally fair to say the quality dipped and we saw a period where low-skill hockey ruled, which led to an unusual glut of low-skill players in the league. It was just… not a good time for the league.

I think the last paragraph hits the nail on the head development and over coaching in the NHL, along with rule and equipment changes to the goalies specifically made scoring and skill less important than it was for most of the Big sports and something the NHL struggled with for a long time, and still does to a degree, in the Bettman world of parity which is really was cloaked in the clutch and grab era that killed skill never mind the huge amount of career altering injuries in the 90s.

I think there’s a legitimate question whether Orr should be brought down to earth a little based on the quality of league he played against. Generally people aren’t willing to have that debate, though. I think he’s still the clear GOAT, but it’s valid to point out that the league was in pretty poor shape for most of the 70s in particular.

That's a hard one for he didn't play nearly as long as Lidstrom or Bourque but when he did play even with the crappy Black Hawks he still tilted the ice at ES in a god like fashion.

657 games or Orr or the resume of either guy in this thread, should make people think about it at least right?

But Orr also was on the scene with the baby boomers who wrote the history and some of them frankly won't even consider the idea, that's the way it goes.

Best peak (or put another way best 657 game stretch) it's Orr by a long shot but then nothing but then again I'm sure some people might be slightly projecting the "what if" even if not consciously.

I look at the trap and trapezoid different for Brodeur than other goalies. This was a goalie so good at puck handling that the NHL changed the rules for goalies handling the puck lol

He made that system more viable for jersey by his puckhandling alone

I'm not a goalie and someone in this thread won't like this but if goalies cruise out of their crease to handle the puck they should be fair game.

Waiting for the incoming from the goalies union....

 

[Albatros]

*Shrugs

It just helps illustrate the silliness of folks celebrating Lidstrom's cups to point out janney and Linesman were not Fedorov/Yzerman.

Prime Bourque on those red wings teams wins all the same cups, and probably propels them to more. Lidstrom on those 80's Bruins finalists is just a guy on a team.

Seeing Sakic have a career year in points, +/- and almost winning the Selke with Bourque making outlet passes to him and then Sakic verbally giving Bourque 100% credit for his outlier season make me wonder what could have been had Bourque been as absolutely horseshoed as Lidstrom in landing with such superstars for his entire career. A ton of Avs players had their best performances ever with Ray guarding the backend for just 1 year. Shame the bruins were so cheap.

But yeah, undeniable. 2nd best Dman ever after Orr for career achievements

Linseman and Janney were Boston's top centermen for one season when Gretzky was in LA already. The Oilers had Messier and Jimmy Carson. The Bruins had a better record than the Oilers that year and were tied 2nd in pre-season odds.

Besides when Lidström won the cup with Datsyuk and Franzén that was also against opposition like Crosby and Malkin.

 

[67 others]

Linseman and Janney were Boston's top centermen for one season when Gretzky was in LA already. The Oilers had Messier and Jimmy Carson. The Bruins had a better record than the Oilers that year and were tied 2nd in pre-season odds.

Besides when Lidström won the cup with Datsyuk and Franzén that was also against opposition like Crosby and Malkin.

I'd take Perennial Selke winning Datsyuk and Zetterberg types over Janney + Random bruins center as well lol

And having another Selke guy like Draper on the 3rd line C doesn't hurt either.

The bruins did indeed have a fantastic record that year. More credit to Bourque since the team did it on his back. The strategy the Oilers used that year was.......focus 2 forwards on forechecking in on Bourque and force him to make outlet passes rather than let him carry the puck because the other bruins players were nowhere near as effective making things happen without him.

On a Lidstrom wings team, if 2 forwards forechecked on Lidstorm to force him to pass the puck.....that's what he wants to do anyways, and the wings go LOL, you just let Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg go up ice with a mismatch because you spent time focusing on shutting Lidstrom down. The bruins didn't have all those guns up front.

Essentially, to shut the bruins down, you focus on Bourque because he has very little in the way of help. if you try to focus on shutting Lidstrom down in that manner, you are letting hall of fame superstars like Yzerman have free reign to move. Bad decision if you try it.

There is a reason you see dozens of Yzerman, Fedorov, Datsyuk/Zetterberg threads on how amazing they were and what a great one two punch they made, similar to Sakic/Forsberg. Because....they were amazing. Janney threads usually devolve into comparing him to a softer more perimeter Scott Gomez and talking about Shanahan stealing his wife and never in my life have I see a thread praising the epic one two punch of Janney/Poulin or janney/Linesman....because nobody would be silly enough to make that thread.

 

[Albatros]

I'd take Perennial Selke winning Datsyuk and Zetterberg types over Janney + Random bruins center as well lol

And having another Selke guy like Draper on the 3rd line C doesn't hurt either.

The bruins did indeed have a fantastic record that year. More credit to Bourque since the team did it on his back. The strategy the Oilers used that year was.......focus 2 forwards on forechecking in on Bourque and force him to make outlet passes rather than let him carry the puck because the other bruins players were nowhere near as effective making things happen without him.

On a Lidstrom wings team, if 2 forwards forechecked on Lidstorm to force him to pass the puck.....that's what he wants to do anyways, and the wings go LOL, you just let Yzerman/Fedorov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg go up ice with a mismatch because you spent time focusing on shutting Lidstrom down. The bruins didn't have all those guns up front.

Essentially, to shut the bruins down, you focus on Bourque because he has very little in the way of help. if you try to focus on shutting Lidstrom down in that manner, you are letting hall of fame superstars like Yzerman have free reign to move. Bad decision if you try it.

There is a reason you see dozens of Yzerman, Fedorov, Datsyuk/Zetterberg threads on how amazing they were and what a great one two punch they made, similar to Sakic/Forsberg. Because....they were amazing. Janney threads usually devolve into comparing him to a softer more perimeter Scott Gomez and talking about Shanahan stealing his wife and never in my life have I see a thread praising the epic one two punch of Janney/Poulin or janney/Linesman....because nobody would be silly enough to make that thread.

Zetterberg was a winger at that point. The middle-six centermen were Johan Franzén and Valtteri Filppula.

 

[67 others]

Linseman and Janney were Boston's top centermen for one season when Gretzky was in LA already. The Oilers had Messier and Jimmy Carson. The Bruins had a better record than the Oilers that year and were tied 2nd in pre-season odds.

Also, no. Janney/Linesman were the top 2 Centers in the 1988 finals for the bruins vs the Gretzky lead Oilers.

Janney/Bob Sweeney(lol) were the top 2 Centers in the 1990 series vs the No gretzky Oilers. Was supposed to be Poulin(they acquired in trade), but he had the flu and only played 2 games of the finals and could barely skate.

 

[67 others]

Zetterberg was a winger at that point. The middle-six centermen were Johan Franzén and Valtteri Filppula.

Must be the first time in History a winger lead his team in faceoffs taken and won then mate. he won more faceoffs than Datsyuk and Franzen combined that year.
But I digress.

That changes what about Datsyuk and Zetterberg both being in the conversation for all time great defensive forwards? He flipped from C to LW often, sometimes one different lines, sometimes paired. We know this. He was also a finalist for the Selke that year as Datsyuk won it. And yeah, those types can go toe to toe with greats. that's kinda the point. If you replaced Datsyuk with Scott Gomez that year, are you confident they still win that cup? because Gomez is a fair janney comparison

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Bourque had higher highs. So I took him. If I was founding a team and wanted steadiness on the back-end for two decades, I may have reevaluated. When I have Bourque, I have a guy who is not only the best defenseman on the ice most of the time, but the best player as well.

Lidstrom was the best player on the ice his entire time too and that is with guys like Yzerman on the ice that are top 25 players. People misunderstand the engine that drove those teams, the Wings in particular Yzerman and Bowman started talking about it in the 94 season that Lidstrom was the best player in the league in interviews. People thought it was to anger Fedorov at the time having the Hart Trophy and Selke season, but they were just talking about how he controlled games. He dominated the game 30 minutes a night in all three zone for 20 years, took a second for the national media to catch on and him finally start winning the awards. He is the second best D-man ever in my opinion.

 

[67 others]

Lidstrom was the best player on the ice his entire time too and that is with guys like Yzerman on the ice that are top 25 players. People misunderstand the engine that drove those teams, the Wings in particular Yzerman and Bowman started talking about it in the 94 season that Lidstrom was the best player in the league in interviews. People thought it was to anger Fedorov at the time having the Hart Trophy and Selke season, but they were just talking about how he controlled games. He dominated the game 30 minutes a night in all three zone for 20 years, took a second for the national media to catch on and him finally start winning the awards. He is the second best D-man ever in my opinion.

Link?

 

[MadLuke]

I think the Big Gorillia is the emergence of players from the USA, which started when Bourque entered the league but really swung into high gear in the 90s and today is extremely strong and deep.

And to put in perspective when Bourque won is norris the American competition for it were, with their age (age)

87: Mark Howe (31), Langway(29)
88: Gary Suter (23), Chelios (26), Howe (32)
90: Housley (25), IaFrate(23), Chelios (28), Leetch (21)
91: Chelios (29), Leetch (22), K.Hatcher(24)
94: Leetch (25), Chelioss (32)

He lost a Norris to Brian Leetch, to Chelios x2 times, and to Langway-Howe, so that 4 Norris lost to the presence of Americans defenceman in the nhl if we just assume that the vote goes like it did without them, which is pure speculation.


Lidstrom American competition when he won the norris were

01: hockey reference does not want to load the page but no American finalist
02: Chelios (40), Aucoin (28), Leetch (33)
03: D.Hatcher (30), -- below the top 15 --- Leetch (34) Chelios(41)
06: 6th in vote Scheinder (36), Rafalski (32)
07: First american was #13 in vote with 23 years old Ryan Whitney, then Rafalsky (33), Preissing (28), Schneider (37)
08: 9th in vote Rafalski (34), Schneider (38)
11: 5th in vote Keith Yandle (24), Byfuglien (25), Ryan Suter (26)

Lidstrom never lost a Norris due to American defenceman in the league I do not think.

Elite American defenceman took a big nose dive.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think there's a clear trend towards a youth movement in the early 80s that slowly ages up the average.

Average age of Norris top 5 vote across entire voting history is 29.3.

Early 80s clearly younger. Mid 90s through late 2000s clearly older. 2021 was youngest average age since 1985.

Took a deeper dive into this. My 1995 data point was weird. I wrote Larry Robinson instead of Larry Murphy and VlookUp did its thing. 2001 is the oldest average year, largely on the back of Bourque and Stevens finishing 2 and 3. But Lidstrom, Blake, and Leetch were all over 30. All my data is set by season year - birth year so VlookUp can work.

There have been 341 instances of a player finishing top 5 in Norris voting.

Age 29 is the most common age with 38 occurrences. 164 (or about 48%) of all Norris top 5 finishes come from players ages 26-31. 306 (or 90% of occurrences) are for defensemen aged 23-36.

Bobby Orr is the only 19 year old to finish top 5 (again using birth years, not HockeyReference)

Orr, Bourque, Housely are the only 20 year olds.

 

[Albatros]

Must be the first time in History a winger lead his team in faceoffs taken and won then mate. he won more faceoffs than Datsyuk and Franzen combined that year.
But I digress.

That changes what about Datsyuk and Zetterberg both being in the conversation for all time great defensive forwards? He flipped from C to LW often, sometimes one different lines, sometimes paired. We know this. He was also a finalist for the Selke that year as Datsyuk won it. And yeah, those types can go toe to toe with greats. that's kinda the point. If you replaced Datsyuk with Scott Gomez that year, are you confident they still win that cup? because Gomez is a fair janney comparison

It was only after Hossa's arrival the following year as Datsyuk's new winger that Zetterberg started to play C to any significant extent, when they won the cup that Zetterberg - Datsyuk - Holmström line was still very stable.

Make of it what you will, but these in any combination are not forward lines comparable to the Gretzky era Oilers:

Zetterberg - Datsyuk - Holmström
Franzén - Filppula - Samuelsson
Drake - Draper - Cleary
Hudler - Helm - McCarty

 

[67 others]

It was only after Hossa's arrival the following year as Datsyuk's new winger that Zetterberg started to play C to any significant extent, when they won the cup that Zetterberg - Datsyuk - Holmström line was still very stable.

Make of it what you will, but these in any combination are not forward lines comparable to the Gretzky era Oilers:

Zetterberg - Datsyuk - Holmström
Franzén - Filppula - Samuelsson
Drake - Draper - Cleary
Hudler - Helm - McCarty

I never said they were. But the Penguins team they faced isn't even close to the Gretzky era oilers either so what is your point? Ryan Malone was their best option for 5th man on the PP lol

And again, Craig Janney = Scott Gomez in that timeframe. You wants Datsyuk vs Crosby or Gomez?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yzerman and Bowman started talking about it in the 94 season that Lidstrom was the best player in the league in interviews.

Gonna need a source on that.

 

[67 others]

Gonna need a source on that.

I asked the same. I followed Hockey news pretty hard back in those days and never ever have I heard or seen any sort of talk from Bowman. His modus operandi back then was to shit on his new team to the media and not praise anyone.

I think this is made up