Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[wetcoast]

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.

That's fair I was talking more generally form the 06 era to the 70s then 80s with the upward mobility of non Canadian players among the very good to elite players in the league.

I was also speaking more specifically about the overall USA NHL player group and certainly Dmen emerged as stars before the forwards did.

I think the general consensus is that Bourque as a whole had stronger competition especially as the 80s wore on.

I really don't like the argument as only being what other Dmen were in the running but all of the other factors in a changing NHL and to be honest there are too many balls in the air at any one time, comparatively speaking, to know exactly how different it was for player A or player B.

The best we can do is make reasoned judgments.

One thing I do wonder about though is what happens with Bourque/Harvey/Lidstrom in ranking after Orr if Raymond doesn't go to the Avs?

We will never know for sure but my guess is that some of the Bourque voters here may think twice or maybe not as I'm not a SC counter but there is a SC boost as I don't want to call it a bias as that's probably not fair.

Speaking of bias, when I played defense it was more in the style not in execution of Lidstrom than Bourque so maybe that influences my thinking on this somewhat..

 

[wetcoast]

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.

When the Oilers swept the bruins in 88 Steve Kasper was the top 6 center not Janney who was only 20.

Boston also stacked up pretty well against the Oilers going into that series but some guy named Wayne (who was 27 and still in his prime) was there for his last SC with his usual insane line of 4-3-10-13 and the obvious Conn Smythe winner.

 

[Run the Gauntlet]

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.

Are you talking about Lidstrom or are you talking about Superman?

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Gonna need a source on that.

I lived in the market. This is post-game interviews from both Yzerman and Bowman. This started way before the 97 lockdown of Lindros in the finals where people realized just how good Lidstrom was. Like I said at the time on sports radio the debate was Yzerman wouldn't give credit to Fedorov. Is there a 29 year old Mlive or Freep article somewhere I am not sure. This wasn't a secret in our market though.

 

[The Zetterberg Era]

Are you talking about Lidstrom or are you talking about Superman?

Felt like it, watched all 20 years of his career, missed maybe 25 games, most of them team selected rest. Seemed like he made less mistakes in those 20 years than the games he missed.

"He’s never out of control," said Shanahan. "I don’t ever remember him having to recover on a play, hustle back and recover. ... Never mind just games, I never saw him make a mistake in practice."

What some of you're going to miss here, is Lidstrom is the best defensive d-man I have seen my life. The way he controlled that end of the ice. He did that while easily being one of the best 10 offensive d-man of the 40 years I have been alive. That little bit that Bourque is better at offense is balanced out by the fact I feel Lidstrom is better defensively which for the record is the primary job.

"He definitely had his own unique way of playing the game," said Niedermayer. "You get to thinking about how he played, you never really saw him with the puck on his stick for 10 to 15 seconds skating with it or making plays that way. It’s like when you teach kids now in whatever sport, you say, 'Let the ball or the puck do the work.' He took that to the highest level you could in terms of moving the puck and putting it in a place where your team could get it back. His shot from the point was rarely blocked. He was a very smart player, probably one of the smartest players to ever play the game. And I think that’s why he was so good."

Lidstrom was the class of his generation

In another era, Scott Niedermayer would have won more than one Norris Trophy. He certainly had the all-world game for it.The future Hall of Famer, however, shared a similar career timeline as a guy named Nicklas Lidstrom.

www.espn.com

 

[tarheelhockey]

I lived in the market. This is post-game interviews from both Yzerman and Bowman. This started way before the 97 lockdown of Lindros in the finals where people realized just how good Lidstrom was. Like I said at the time on sports radio the debate was Yzerman wouldn't give credit to Fedorov. Is there a 29 year old Mlive or Freep article somewhere I am not sure. This wasn't a secret in our market though.

With all due and sincere respect, “you had to be there” isn’t a credible source for a claim as extraordinary as Lidstrom being called the best player in the league in 1994 — by anyone at all, let’s alone Yzerman and Bowman. I don’t want to be an asshole about this but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this never happened.

As a bit of counter-evidence, here’s Steve Yzerman quoted on New Year’s Day 1994 saying Sergei Fedorov was the best player in the league at the time, which directly contradicts the narrative that you’re constructing here.

Edit: March 2 1994, the Freep published an article about how the Wings PR department could have its hands full boosting for the teams’ various stars to receive award votes. They’re top projects at the time: Fedorov for Hart, Ray Sheppard for first team all star, and at Bowman’s personal direction, Chris Osgood for Calder. The latter was described as a great challenge, and Lidstrom was not mentioned at all, despite that quote from Bowman which would have been the opportune time to mention he deserved the Hart.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Bourque for me.

He did it a little bit better and for a longer time than Lidstrom. He had a 21 year career that was Norris Top 5 and AS-1/AS-2 from beginning to end. 19x Norris Top 5 (1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4) and 13x AS-1/6x AS-2

Another factor is Bourque had tougher competition going against the primes of Coffey, Chelios, Leetch, Stevens, Langway

Both are Top 5 IMO (Orr, Bourque, Harvey, Lidstrom, Shore)

OT but a Boston Bruins all-time can hit you with Orr, Bourque and Eddie Shore on the back end, and the depth doesn't end there. That's absolutely ludicrous. Boston on D and Montreal at G are just untouchable.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

OT but a Boston Bruins all-time can hit you with Orr, Bourque and Eddie Shore on the back end, and the depth doesn't end there. That's absolutely ludicrous. Boston on D and Montreal at G are just untouchable.

Hell the entire all time group is absurd. Brad Park is arguably only the 5th best defenseman in team history

Orr Bourque
Shore Chara
Park Hitchman

 

[BraveCanadian]

With all due and sincere respect, “you had to be there” isn’t a credible source for a claim as extraordinary as Lidstrom being called the best player in the league in 1994 — by anyone at all, let’s alone Yzerman and Bowman. I don’t want to be an asshole about this but I’ll bet dollars to donuts that this never happened.

As a bit of counter-evidence, here’s Steve Yzerman quoted on New Year’s Day 1994 saying Sergei Fedorov was the best player in the league at the time, which directly contradicts the narrative that you’re constructing here.

Edit: March 2 1994, the Freep published an article about how the Wings PR department could have its hands full boosting for the teams’ various stars to receive award votes. They’re top projects at the time: Fedorov for Hart, Ray Sheppard for first team all star, and at Bowman’s personal direction, Chris Osgood for Calder. The latter was described as a great challenge, and Lidstrom was not mentioned at all, despite that quote from Bowman which would have been the opportune time to mention he deserved the Hart.

Yeah, 1994 is an especially bad time to make that argument because Fedorov was getting a ton of accolades from everyone that year, obviously.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Hell the entire all time group is absurd. Brad Park is arguably only the 5th best defenseman in team history

Orr Bourque
Shore Chara
Park Hitchman

A bit off-topic for the thread-subject, I suppose... but this list should have included Dit Clapper.

Does Hitchman even have a case over Leo Boivin?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, yes he does. Hitchman is very underrated here.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yes, yes he does. Hitchman is very underrated here.

Didn't someone post recently about Hitchman being the defensive lynchpin on the pair?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

A bit off-topic for the thread-subject, I suppose... but this list should have included Dit Clapper.

Does Hitchman even have a case over Leo Boivin?

Kinda easily IMO. I'd also have Quackenbush above Boivin

Thinking on it more I'd slot Clapper in for Hitchman.

 

[LightningStorm]

Bourque. Higher peak and better longevity. I have Bourque #2 all time for d-men and Lidstrom #5, with Potvin and Harvey in between them.

Bourque came into the League at a time when it was, like, "Kid, you're 19, go out there and make a difference on the ice in any way you know how!" Whereas when Lidstrom came in, it was more like, "Kid, you're going to learn your craft slowly and by playing your position and the team system." Both excelled into the best at what they were asked to do.

The difference here is that Bourque was basically depended on to carry the heavy weight of his club offensively and defensively for about 16 years, while Lidstrom's entire career bookends a period when Detroit had an all-time great line-up of talent in all areas (well, not so much in goal). This doesn't mean Bourque was better necessarily, but it explains why Bourque can be seen making more mistakes. Lidstrom didn't need to carry his club's offensive load, and he didn't have to gamble too often. He was the master at knowing where to be, letting the game come to him, taking charge when necessary. Bourque didn't have that luxury, as he had to lead at both ends.

Pretty much how I view it. Bourque was great on both ends, while I'd say Lidstrom was good on offense and great on defense (above Bourque on that end though). I do think Bourque's edge on offense was bigger than Lidstrom's in their own end though. And as you mention, Bourque also reached his peak earlier, and in the late 80's/early 90's was the 3rd best player behind Gretzky and Lemieux.

In terms of Bourque carrying a heavy load, it reminds me of something I recently said on a thread about Karlsson. If you are building a cup contender, you don't want a d-man to carry a heavy load on offense like that, as Lidstrom's team was built in a far better way to where he didn't have to. However, where Bourque is different from Karlsson is he could play the shut down role if need be. Meanwhile, I never viewed Lidstrom as a gamebreaking threat who could put the team on his back like that. For the rest of my top 5 after Orr, all 4 are great defensively. How I separate them offensively is Harvey and Lidstrom are the type of elite shutdown d-men who also finish the season top 10 in d-men scoring, but not overall scoring. Potvin and Bourque reach that next level of being good enough to be top 10 in overall scoring.

 

[psycat]

Bourque. Higher peak and better longevity. I have Bourque #2 all time for d-men and Lidstrom #5, with Potvin and Harvey in between them.

Pretty much how I view it. Bourque was great on both ends, while I'd say Lidstrom was good on offense and great on defense (above Bourque on that end though). I do think Bourque's edge on offense was bigger than Lidstrom's in their own end though. And as you mention, Bourque also reached his peak earlier, and in the late 80's/early 90's was the 3rd best player behind Gretzky and Lemieux.

In terms of Bourque carrying a heavy load, it reminds me of something I recently said on a thread about Karlsson. If you are building a cup contender, you don't want a d-man to carry a heavy load on offense like that, as Lidstrom's team was built in a far better way to where he didn't have to. However, where Bourque is different from Karlsson is he could play the shut down role if need be. Meanwhile, I never viewed Lidstrom as a gamebreaking threat who could put the team on his back like that. For the rest of my top 5 after Orr, all 4 are great defensively. How I separate them offensively is Harvey and Lidstrom are the type of elite shutdown d-men who also finish the season top 10 in d-men scoring, but not overall scoring. Potvin and Bourque reach that next level of being good enough to be top 10 in overall scoring.

Bourque over Lidström, fine. But how do you have Harvey above Lidström in that case? Since the entire premise for Bourque over Lidström is individual accomplishments and attributing Lidströms team success for being on a better team and his Norris advantage for being in a weaker era?

Harvey played on arguably the most dominant team ever in the era with the least parity ever in a full Canadian league so how can he be ranked above Lidström in that case? Certainly not better numbers or actual on ice play.

And Potvin, based on mostly peak I guess, over Lidström also kinda fine but then why is he not above Bourque aswell? Not really a problem with this one more curious about your reasoning.

 

[SillyRabbit]

And Potvin, based on mostly peak I guess, over Lidström also kinda fine but then why is he not above Bourque aswell? Not really a problem with this one more curious about your reasoning.

Because multiple factors can be considered when making a ranking. Peak, prime, longevity, team success, individual accomplishments, etc all have their place.

Here's a simple (made up) example:

Potvin:
Prime: 8.5/10
Peak: 9.5/10
Longevity: 8/10
Total: 26/30

Bourque:
Prime: 9/10
Peak: 9/10
Longevity: 9.5/10
Total: 27.5/30

Lidstrom:
Prime: 8.5/10
Peak: 8/10
Longevity: 9/10
Total: 25.5/30

Thus, one could rank them: Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom, while acknowledging that:

-Potvin had the highest peak
-Lidstrom had better longevity than Potvin
-Bourque ranks ahead of Potvin overall despite having a lower peak
-and so forth

These numbers are all made up but the point is that each factor can be considered/debated on its own to then paint a bigger picture.

 

[psycat]

Because multiple factors can be considered when making a ranking. Peak, prime, longevity, team success, individual accomplishments, etc all have their place.

Here's a simple (made up) example:

Potvin:
Prime: 8.5/10
Peak: 9.5/10
Longevity: 8/10
Total: 26/30

Bourque:
Prime: 9/10
Peak: 9/10
Longevity: 9.5/10
Total: 27.5/30

Lidstrom:
Prime: 8.5/10
Peak: 8/10
Longevity: 9/10
Total: 25.5/30

Thus, one could rank them: Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom, while acknowledging that:

-Potvin had the highest peak
-Lidstrom had better longevity than Potvin
-Bourque ranks ahead of Potvin overall despite having a lower peak
-and so forth

These numbers are all made up but the point is that each factor can be considered/debated on its own to then paint a bigger picture.

Sure but what numbers would justify it? The ones you write down, for example, are ridiculously weird. That said I have no problem with Potvin above Lidström per say(since I like players who peaked high and for quite a long time) but Harvey above Lidström makes zero sense if you rank Bourque and Potvin ahead aswell.

Infact id argue Harvey above Lidström(or Bourque obviously) makes zero sense at all.

Also I didn't ask you but the one who made his list but guess you are an alt account or something?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Bourque over Lidström, fine. But how do you have Harvey above Lidström in that case? Since the entire premise for Bourque over Lidström is individual accomplishments and attributing Lidströms team success for being on a better team and his Norris advantage for being in a weaker era?

Harvey played on arguably the most dominant team ever in the era with the least parity ever in a full Canadian league so how can he be ranked above Lidström in that case? Certainly not better numbers or actual on ice play.

And Potvin, based on mostly peak I guess, over Lidström also kinda fine but then why is he not above Bourque aswell? Not really a problem with this one more curious about your reasoning.

For me Harvey finishing 2,3,5,5,5 in Hart voting gives an indication on his impact on the loaded team, especially in the Norris Trophy era where it's near impossible for a defenseman to win the Hart.

Really though they both have 7 Norris trophies and 10x AS-1 so its splitting hairs

 

[Moose Head]

Because multiple factors can be considered when making a ranking. Peak, prime, longevity, team success, individual accomplishments, etc all have their place.

Here's a simple (made up) example:

Potvin:
Prime: 8.5/10
Peak: 9.5/10
Longevity: 8/10
Total: 26/30

Bourque:
Prime: 9/10
Peak: 9/10
Longevity: 9.5/10
Total: 27.5/30

Lidstrom:
Prime: 8.5/10
Peak: 8/10
Longevity: 9/10
Total: 25.5/30

Thus, one could rank them: Bourque, Potvin, Lidstrom, while acknowledging that:

-Potvin had the highest peak
-Lidstrom had better longevity than Potvin
-Bourque ranks ahead of Potvin overall despite having a lower peak
-and so forth

These numbers are all made up but the point is that each factor can be considered/debated on its own to then paint a bigger picture.

How are Bourque and Lidstrom not 10’s in longevity? You wanted more? Does only Chelios get a 10, lol.

 

[67 others]

How are Bourque and Lidstrom not 10’s in longevity? You wanted more? Does only Chelios get a 10, lol.

Bourque should be a 10 there. Lidstrom 9.5.

Finishing top 4 for the Norris 19 times and 7th 3 other times is pretty god tier for longevity in 22 years.

Lidstrom has 12 top 4 finishes, and then a 5th, three 6th and one 8th and 3 years of no votes. Still final boss tier, but a tier below.

Potvin for longevity falls a bit lower to 7 for me. His prime years were amazing, but he only played 15 years to lidstrom's 20 and Bourque's 22 and only was in the best dman discussion for 10 of those years due to some injuries and retiring early at age 34

 

[MadLuke]

Lidstrom had a Rookie of the year type of first season at 21, 40 years old Norris winner, playing 1,494 games on 1,526 available before his last season missing less than 2 games a 82 games season pace, without missing the playoff once and just 2 playoff games on 265 possible.

Bourque won the Calder with the Gretzky rules and played 28:32 a night in a long playoff run at season #21.

They are both ridiculous, longevity wise and should be among the top of the top ever

But that obviously not a problem to give only 10 to Howe and everyone goes below if you consider him the best, that how rating should work.

 

[67 others]

Lidstrom had a Rookie of the year type of first season at 21, 40 years old Norris winner, playing 1,494 games on 1,526 available before his last season missing less than 2 games a 82 games season pace, without missing the playoff once and just 2 playoff games on 265 possible.

Bourque won the Calder with the Gretzky rules and played 28:32 a year in the playoff at season 21.

They are both ridiculous, longevity wise and should be among the top of the top ever

But that obviously not a problem to give only 10 to Howe and everyone goes below if you consider him the best, that how rating should work.

Bourque is the Howe of defensemen. His longevity at the top is the only thing comparable

 

[Albatros]

Bourque is the Howe of defensemen. His longevity at the top is the only thing comparable

Chris Chelios.

 

[MadLuke]

Chelios played only 50 more regular season game than Bourque and an other 50 playoffs games, Bourque has 22 season of Norris vote level play, Chelios around 17

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Lidstrom was more dynamic but I take Bourque. He literally had no weaknesses. Was just an absolute rock for so long. Played nasty like Pronger and skated like the wind. Bourque was relentless on opposing players, borderline dirty at times.