Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[LightningStorm]

I'm also of the opinion that Bourque had the greatest longevity as a d-man. Compared to Lidstrom, he also had a faster start to his career. Bourque is the best d-man after Orr not only because he had the best longevity for any d-man, but I also thought his peak was only surpassed by Orr and Potvin.

 

[Albatros]

Bourque played only 43 games past age 40. He did start younger than most, but I don’t think that's uniquely impressive.

 

[MadLuke]

Bourque played only 43 games past age 40. He did start younger than most, but I don’t think that's uniquely impressive.

It is the length of relevant at the highest level of hockey that is close to be unique.

Thornton played more game after 40 and started as an 18 years old but he was a relevant nhler for what 19 of those seasons and a top one for around 15, Bourque was around having an argument for in the top 5 at worst to almost always be in the Top 3 conversation at his position for 22 years. Outside Howe does anyone beat him ? It is hard to argue for more than 21 season for Messier and it was not close to Bourque by Vancouver time and Messier his quite something longevity wise.

Bourque could have been good enough to be a third pair 16:00 minute Ds if he is willing to play for 1 years low money contract we can imagine for a very long time, but if he do that without being an impact player how relevant it is to his longevity, not nothing obviously but not much either imo.

 

[Albatros]

Chelios retired at 48 and was also a Norris finalist and cup champion at 40, plus won another cup at 46. Lidström actually won the Norris at 40. His last Norris Bourque won at 33. Even in Boston there's Zdeno Chára who played at a high level until 45.

 

[MadLuke]

Chelios retired at 48 and was also a Norris finalist and cup champion at 40, plus won another cup at 46. Lidström actually won the Norris at 40. His last Norris Bourque won at 33. Even in Boston there's Zdeno Chára who played at a high level until 45.

Lot of them are among the longevity champion, but does any of them has 22 or more of elite season in the nhl ? Chara had a much slower start. If we cannot easily find anyone outside Howe that achieved that, it seem to be a special enough.

 

[Albatros]

Gordie Howe had a somewhat slower start as well. One can give Bourque credit for reaching a higher level earlier (many young defensemen did in the early 1980s), but that's another category really to guys relevant well into their 40s or indeed Howe.

 

[67 others]

Chris Chelios.

Chelios was amazing, but we are talking longevity at the top, and Bourque was top 4 for the Norris trophy for 19 NHL years, and no lower than 7th for the other 3 years.

I'm not looking at the twilight years where chelios was not relevant. Howe was relevant and top 5 in scoring almost every year he played, and Bourque is the only dman with the records to say he is the Howe of dmen. Lidstrom, is the next closest, but significantly behind Bourque's 19 top 4 Norris finishes

 

[Albatros]

I'm not sure if top 4 Norris finish is even a thing. The best is the best, but the lower you go in rankings the more it's just relative to the quality of the competition that particular year.

 

[67 others]

I'm not sure if top 4 Norris finish is even a thing. The best is the best, but the lower you go in rankings the more it's just relative to the quality of the competition that particular year.

Top 4 spots generally get the most votes from the writers voting. 5 on is where it tails off.

Kind of moot considering Bourque competition was always full of tougher competition than Lidstrom's era. Case in point, lidstrom's first 3 Norris trophies where the runner up's were way better players 10 years prior than they were at age 40

 

[Albatros]

Top 4 spots generally get the most votes from the writers voting. 5 on is where it tails off.

Kind of moot considering Bourque competition was always full of tougher competition than Lidstrom's era. Case in point, lidstrom's first 3 Norris trophies where the runner up's were way better players 10 years prior than they were at age 40

That really depends on the year. For example Bourque 1986:

1. Paul Coffey 53-5-0 (93.33 vote share)
2. Mark Howe 7-44-0 (57.33)
3. Larry Robinson 0-4-31 (14.33)
4. Ray Bourque 0-3-16 (8.33)
5. Rod Langway 0-4-7 (6.33)
6. Dave Babych 0-0-1 (0.33)

Two players received 1st votes, five 2nd votes, four 3rd votes. The winner is clear, the runner-up is clear, and three players are in the 3rd to 5th range small steps apart.

Versus Lidström 2004:

1. Scott Niedermayer 72-13-10-3-2 (83.85)
2. Zdeno Chára 19-36-16-11-8 (54.13)
3. Chris Pronger 7-19-16-17-11 (33.17)
4. Bryan McCabe 1-12-10-10-15 (18.17)
5. Adrian Aucoin 2-3-12-16-17 (15.96)
6. Nicklas Lidström 1-6-10-19-6 (15.87)
7. Mathieu Schneider 1-2-17-7-14 (13.85)
8. Rob Blake 1-8-5-9-6 (11.92)
(+13 others)

Eight players received 1st votes, thirteen 2nd votes, eleven 3rd votes. Again the winner is clear, second and third more or less too, but from fourth to eighth there's not a lot of separation. Lidström gets 15.87 percent of the votes while Bourque got 8.33 in the other example, yet finishes two places lower. Mathieu Schneider (13.85 vote share in 2004) failed to ever best Dave Babych's career high granted by one singular 3rd place vote (0.33 vote share).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, if nothing else this is a really unique tangent on Bourque vs Lidstrom...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That really depends on the year. For example Bourque 1986:

1. Paul Coffey 53-5-0 (93.33 vote share)
2. Mark Howe 7-44-0 (57.33)
3. Larry Robinson 0-4-31 (14.33)
4. Ray Bourque 0-3-16 (8.33)
5. Rod Langway 0-4-7 (6.33)
6. Dave Babych 0-0-1 (0.33)

Two players received 1st votes, five 2nd votes, four 3rd votes. The winner is clear, the runner-up is clear, and three players are in the 3rd to 5th range small steps apart.

Versus Lidström 2004:

1. Scott Niedermayer 72-13-10-3-2 (83.85)
2. Zdeno Chára 19-36-16-11-8 (54.13)
3. Chris Pronger 7-19-16-17-11 (33.17)
4. Bryan McCabe 1-12-10-10-15 (18.17)
5. Adrian Aucoin 2-3-12-16-17 (15.96)
6. Nicklas Lidström 1-6-10-19-6 (15.87)
7. Mathieu Schneider 1-2-17-7-14 (13.85)
8. Rob Blake 1-8-5-9-6 (11.92)
(+13 others)

Eight players received 1st votes, thirteen 2nd votes, eleven 3rd votes. Again the winner is clear, second and third more or less too, but from fourth to eighth there's not a lot of separation. Lidström gets 15.87 percent of the votes while Bourque got 8.33 in the other example, yet finishes two places lower. Mathieu Schneider (13.85 vote share in 2004) failed to ever best Dave Babych's career high granted by one singular 3rd place vote (0.33 vote share).

I talked about this recently in this series of posts (starting here). There were significantly more Norris trophy votes to go around from 1996 onwards, since the ballot was expanded from 3 to 5 votes.

Overall Bourque was in the top three on 19 of 60 ballots (31.7%) while Lidstrom was in the top three on 17 of 104 ballots (16.3%) so it makes sense that Bourque ranked higher. But I agree with the general comment that you can't automatically conclude that 4th>6th (or 1st>2nd) when comparing different seasons directly.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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

i’d add to this that 37 year old harvey went to the rangers and not only won the norris but finished as the hart runner up

so yeah, “but habs” doesn’t really fly at all as an argument

 

[67 others]

I talked about this recently in this series of posts (starting here). There were significantly more Norris trophy votes to go around from 1996 onwards, since the ballot was expanded from 3 to 5 votes.

Overall Bourque was in the top three on 19 of 60 ballots (31.7%) while Lidstrom was in the top three on 17 of 104 ballots (16.3%) so it makes sense that Bourque ranked higher. But I agree with the general comment that you can't automatically conclude that 4th>6th (or 1st>2nd) when comparing different seasons directly.

I should have guessed you had the data ready to go

 

[Albatros]

I talked about this recently in this series of posts (starting here). There were significantly more Norris trophy votes to go around from 1996 onwards, since the ballot was expanded from 3 to 5 votes.

Overall Bourque was in the top three on 19 of 60 ballots (31.7%) while Lidstrom was in the top three on 17 of 104 ballots (16.3%) so it makes sense that Bourque ranked higher. But I agree with the general comment that you can't automatically conclude that 4th>6th (or 1st>2nd) when comparing different seasons directly.

When you have more votes they tend to be more spread out, and especially polarizing players players may suffer like Scott Stevens did in 1997 as he fell fifth despite being fairly comfortably second in top 2 votes due to not doing well in the 3rd to 5th segment. Plus when we're talking about finishing 4th or 5th, we also know how many voters actually considered the player worthy of that placement. Like Stevens finished 5th with only four voters actually seeing him 5th.

 

[sr edler]

The counteracting factor is money - significantly more now than ever before (adjusted for inflation of course). This creates additional demand.

For example, Bobby Orr signed the first $1M contract in 1971. He was making $200K per year. That equates to $1.5M in today's money. In the modern NHL this is bottom pairing money.

Bobby Orr today would make 8 or 9 times more than he did in his own era. There is simply no way that this doesn't equate to significantly more scouting, more agents, more talent development, etc.

So you're saying A) agents are enhancing the quality of the on-ice product by boosting contracts, and, because of this, B) there are players who play in the league today who wouldn't do so otherwise?

So, my question is then, who are these players, who aren't actually passionate about the sport but only plays for the money? Are they currently in the league?

I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be any such players, or variations of such cases, I'm just curious if you have any names?

Since hockey is such an expensive sport to play these days, and since most players start at such a young age, I feel it's probably more likely that a parent would push an unwilling kid into the sport, than an unwilling kid pushing himself into the sport just because of Mr. Krabs feelings. And parents pushing unwilling kids into the sport doesn't exactly have the greatest track record. I remember Brett Lindros for instance saying his brother (Eric) was super passionate about the sport, but he (Brett) claimed that he wasn't himself.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So you're saying A) agents are enhancing the quality of the on-ice product by boosting contracts, and, because of this, B) there are players who play in the league today who wouldn't do so otherwise?

So, my question is then, who are these players, who aren't actually passionate about the sport but only plays for the money? Are they currently in the league?

I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be any such players, or variations of such cases, I'm just curious if you have any names?

Since hockey is such an expensive sport to play these days, and since most players start at such a young age, I feel it's probably more likely that a parent would push an unwilling kid into the sport, than an unwilling kid pushing himself into the sport just because of Mr. Krabs feelings. And parents pushing unwilling kids into the sport doesn't exactly have the greatest track record. I remember Brett Lindros for instance saying his brother (Eric) was super passionate about the sport, but he (Brett) claimed that he wasn't himself.

The way it would likely impact things is certain talented kids who were already playing would be more likely to become recognized and encouraged to pursue a hockey career. As contracts get larger, agents and scouts are more well-funded and therefore able to cast a wider net.

There are far more professional hockey leagues and far more professional hockey jobs now than ever before. The number of professional jobs available is going to impact the number of talented players who pursue it as a career and not just a hobby.

Hockey will also lose fewer talented athletes to other professions due to the money in hockey having grown relative to other career paths (adjusted for inflation, top players make 800% or 900% what Bobby Orr's generation earned whereas blue collar job average pay has increased by a paltry 5% since 1979 according to some estimates). So whereas a talented and intelligent player in 1970 who was also considering a job in say, Government service, may see the two professions as roughly equal in pay over the long run but the jobs prospect is far more reliable in Government service, they're likely to pick that profession over hockey. But in modern times, even scrub NHL players earn 8 times as much as an average Government employee, so the incentive to remain in hockey is massively stronger.

To imagine this to not have a significant impact is to deny the very forces of supply and demand.

 

[MadLuke]

So, my question is then, who are these players, who aren't actually passionate about the sport but only plays for the money? Are they currently in the league?

I'm not saying there couldn't possibly be any such players, or variations of such cases, I'm just curious if you have any names?

Athlete can be passionate about sport itself more than one in particular, when heavyweight boxing was the most prestigious thing in the world with people at the top being paid 5 million for a single fight and the NFl was paying around 20k-60k a year, I am sure more big guy went into boxing instead of football-basketball then now you are right. But prestige being really important has well it does correlate with money but not 1:1 and prestige wise playing for Montreal-Toronto was not necessarily much lower in the 06 than now if at all, one could build an argument that it was more prestigious, more of an nation knew your name, gave you a nickname and you wrote your name more in history.

To imagine this to not have a significant impact is to deny the very forces of supply and demand.

Salary augment demand, but it can be counteracted by the investment asked to get it, CEO of fortune 500 pay a lot, more people try to become a nurse than try to become CEOs.

Take the F1 drivers example, that pay a fortune, have you ever encountered someone that was actively trying to become one ?

We are speculating but I think the city Ornskoldsvik in Sweden do show how potentially little taping on the world talent is happening right now, how can that relatively small city Top 10 players could beat some countries.

All the kids play on cold exterior ice
No special training, AAA type of affair, no summer camps,, kids tend to play other sports (tennis, soccer, a lot)
A legendary hockey club near buy, actively involved in their development
Free
This look more like Canadians city of the past than now:

I played with the same team from the time I was six years old until I was 18 years old
“I hear stories about youth hockey in America and Canada, and kids jumping around from team to team. There’s all kinds of travel teams you have to try out for, and expensive camps, and coaches to impress. But in Sweden, it’s more of a family atmosphere. At least when I was young. I know it has changed a bit lately. Until I was 14, there were no ‘tryouts.’ If you’re born in O-vik, you play for MoDo or one of the other local teams. In fact, the Sedin twins and Markus Naslund played for a team called Järved, on an outdoor rink. There are different levels, but you are never cut. When people talk about Swedish hockey, they often mention the ‘chemistry’ of the players. But really, it’s a total philosophy of community that starts when you’re youn

Planes, trains and buses: A journey to discover the ‘secret’ of Ovik, the unlikely hockey factory

The story of a Swedish mill town that produced NHL stars Peter Forsberg, Daniel and Henrik Sedin, Markus Naslund and Victor Hedman.

theathletic.com

If kids play outside and the best one get spotted by teams, you are the most popular sport with iconic teams that can pay for their development, it will be really hard to beat the process to have the highest talent end up in the league.

One metric, how many people in the first round have an agent or ex nhler father, if it is in the 10-20% that give an idea of where the talent pool is coming from.

 

[67 others]

We can

That really depends on the year. For example Bourque 1986:

1. Paul Coffey 53-5-0 (93.33 vote share)
2. Mark Howe 7-44-0 (57.33)
3. Larry Robinson 0-4-31 (14.33)
4. Ray Bourque 0-3-16 (8.33)
5. Rod Langway 0-4-7 (6.33)
6. Dave Babych 0-0-1 (0.33)

Two players received 1st votes, five 2nd votes, four 3rd votes. The winner is clear, the runner-up is clear, and three players are in the 3rd to 5th range small steps apart.

Versus Lidström 2004:

1. Scott Niedermayer 72-13-10-3-2 (83.85)
2. Zdeno Chára 19-36-16-11-8 (54.13)
3. Chris Pronger 7-19-16-17-11 (33.17)
4. Bryan McCabe 1-12-10-10-15 (18.17)
5. Adrian Aucoin 2-3-12-16-17 (15.96)
6. Nicklas Lidström 1-6-10-19-6 (15.87)
7. Mathieu Schneider 1-2-17-7-14 (13.85)
8. Rob Blake 1-8-5-9-6 (11.92)
(+13 others)

Eight players received 1st votes, thirteen 2nd votes, eleven 3rd votes. Again the winner is clear, second and third more or less too, but from fourth to eighth there's not a lot of separation. Lidström gets 15.87 percent of the votes while Bourque got 8.33 in the other example, yet finishes two places lower. Mathieu Schneider (13.85 vote share in 2004) failed to ever best Dave Babych's career high granted by one singular 3rd place vote (0.33 vote share).

debate it all day. Having watched both players I am comfortable saying this.

Bourque's best 5 seasons are better than Lidstrom's absolute best peak season. Full stop. Bourque's longevity in being a top Dman in the league is larger and longer, and I know it is a tough pill to eat because Lidstrom's longevity creams most other players who are not Bourque, and Bourque faced stiffer competition for his accolades for the majority of his prime. Lidstrom's first 3 norris trophies were beating 40 and 39 year old versions of Bourque, Chelios and Macinnis who, if you transplanted the 30 year old versions of those guysto that spot, would have bested Lidstrom for those Norris trophies.

That's it. Plain and simple

 

[Albatros]

We can

debate it all day. Having watched both players I am comfortable saying this.

Bourque's best 5 seasons are better than Lidstrom's absolute best peak season. Full stop. Bourque's longevity in being a top Dman in the league is larger and longer, and I know it is a tough pill to eat because Lidstrom's longevity creams most other players who are not Bourque, and Bourque faced stiffer competition for his accolades for the majority of his prime. Lidstrom's first 3 norris trophies were beating 40 and 39 year old versions of Bourque, Chelios and Macinnis who, if you transplanted the 30 year old versions of those guysto that spot, would have bested Lidstrom for those Norris trophies.

That's it. Plain and simple

One can feel one way or another about how 30-year-old Bourque might have done in more modern times, but 30-year-old Chelios lost to Phil Housley.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Chelios retired at 48 and was also a Norris finalist and cup champion at 40, plus won another cup at 46. Lidström actually won the Norris at 40. His last Norris Bourque won at 33. Even in Boston there's Zdeno Chára who played at a high level until 45.

The bolded is phrased like a counterpoint, but it’s just reinforcing the point you’re responding to.

Both Bourque and Chelios were Cup-winning Norris finalists at 40. Bourque retired and rode off into the sunset, while Chelios kept playing until he was the #6 defenseman on a Cup team. That’s exactly the point the other person was making about how Bourque could certainly have hung around and kept chasing Cups as a role player, but that would have had very little meaning for his longevity as a top player.

And yes, Lidstrom won the Norris at 40, but nobody takes that one seriously as it was openly a lifetime achievement award from the media. His last Norris that felt truly “earned” was at age 37.

 

[67 others]

One can feel one way or another about how 30-year-old Bourque might have done in more modern times, but 30-year-old Chelios lost to Phil Housley.

He sure did. Chelios was hit or miss, particularly in years he had 245 penalty minutes and his lowest point total per 80 games in a decade while Housley had sexy offensive totals. The next year Chelios won the norris despite most folks saying Bourque deserved it over him,. In the same vein, I don't think Green deserved second place over Lidstrom in 2009 or 2010


I could go all day describing why I think Potvin 1985 who got zero Norris votes was better than Derian Hatcher 2003 who came 3rd to Lidstrom and Macinnis.

At the end of the day. Do i think Bourque was significantly better than Lidstrom year in year out? yes I do

 

[MadLuke]

Correlation is not causation, but Detroit was not winning anything before Lidstrom became the guy and won one playoff round since he lefts more than a decade ago.

One of Lidstrom coaches was called the best in the world with Lidstrom and has a hard time finding a job in the league without him.

 

[67 others]

Correlation is not causation, but Detroit was not winning anything before Lidstrom became the guy and won one playoff round since he lefts more than a decade ago.

One of Lidstrom coaches was called the best in the world with Lidstrom and has a hard time finding a job in the league without him.

Of course. He was a key piece.

I still say Bourque could have filled the same spot and won the same, if not more cups on that stacked monster of a red wings squad

 

[Felidae]

So I'm firmly on the Bourque camp but just wanted to touch on this.

And yes, Lidstrom won the Norris at 40, but nobody takes that one seriously as it was openly a lifetime achievement award from the media. His last Norris that felt truly “earned” was at age 37.

I've heard this thrown around endlessly and it's treated as fact around here. But what's the basis behind this idea that he was gifted the Norris?

It's not like Lidstrom wasn't anywhere near Norris talks the 2 years after he had won his last Norris. He finished 3rd and 4th in Norris voting.


He had a resurgence in his production after a down year (2009-10) of 49 points, which was still good enough to almost be a finalist. In 2010-11 he finished 2nd in defenseman scoring, only 6 points behind visnovsky

and while it was statistically similar to his 2008-09 season, he wasn't lapped in production by a peak Mike Green. Who finished ahead of him in Norris voting.

So the media hyped him up, but based on all the above his Norris doesn't seem egregious. Unless there's evidence pointing towards a noticeable decline defensively, because obviously the voting committee didn't agree.