Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[wetcoast]

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.

Lidstrom's last Norris was a close one to be sure as 4 guys got significant Norris votes but it's also quite clear that Bourque was getting some "reputation" votes on the backside of his career as well as do many players and most certainly wouldn't have had that one last 2nd in Norris voting and first team all star finish in his last year had he stayed with the Bruins as his play was also slipping.

Even in 98-99 when he was 3rd in Norris voting for the bruins a ton of that vote probably came because Bourque was on the ice for 59 of Boston's 65 PPG that year and at ES he wasn't anything special but he did play a ton that year as well so voters might have been swayed by that.

Like I posted up thread if one has Orr all time as the best Dman and we gave him say a score of 1000, guys like Harvey, Bourque and Lidstrom are in the high 900s based on overall career value so it's not like anyone can really "prove" anything here either it's a preference.

Does one take Orr' s complete career in a vacuum in any time period over Harvey, Lidstrom or Bourque....maybe if one really values peak but for their entire career value there isn't a ton separating these guys or Potvin for that matter.

 

[Albatros]

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.

Bourque (and many others) also got a ton of legacy votes later in their careers. Lidström it helped to win one trophy, and just as well he was robbed earlier in his career.

 

[tarheelhockey]

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



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.

Because it’s a recently lived experience that I’m sure everyone here remembers. Hell, a lot of us even had HF accounts by that time and we here for the immediate, overwhelming “lol that’s a reputation win” reaction.

That was when peak Weber and peak Chara were both terrorizing the league, and Lidstrom had settled back into being more like a top-5 D. And suddenly he wins the Norris over the guys who dominated the pre-vote conversation. We all remember this, right?

Not really sure it’s necessary to get into “but he had X points” type analysis when nobody seems to think it’s really even an argument.

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.

There is no voting committee per se, it’s just a survey of PHWA membership. In other words, a media vote. So, openly saying “the media hyped him up” is kind of acknowledging a smoking gun.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Lidstrom's last Norris was a close one to be sure as 4 guys got significant Norris votes but it's also quite clear that Bourque was getting some "reputation" votes on the backside of his career as well as do many players and most certainly wouldn't have had that one last 2nd in Norris voting and first team all star finish in his last year had he stayed with the Bruins as his play was also slipping.

I don’t disagree. My point is not that Bourque was better at 40. My point is that he had a pretty much identical track record as Chelios and Lidstrom at 40, despite the earlier post appearing to suggest that he was somehow behind them. A Cup and a Norris finalist for all three of them — the only difference is Lidstrom sneaking in that questionable Norris on a split vote.

I haven’t met a hell of a lot of people who felt otherwise than that his 2011 Norris was a bit of a sham, because nobody at the time seriously considered him the best defenseman in the league, so I assume we all mentally adjust that back to more like a 3rd place finish, so that age 40 season aligns near-perfectly with both Bourque and Chelios.

Which leads us back to the greater point about longevity. Between these three players, Bourque retired immediately, Lidstrom played one more declining season, and Chelios kept going Jagr-style long after he became irrelevant. Why would we view any one of these players as meaningfully different after 40?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

this is a childish response to a very reasonable post that was going out of its way to be generous to you

 

[Felidae]

Because it’s a recently lived experience that I’m sure everyone here remembers. Hell, a lot of us even had HF accounts by that time and we here for the immediate, overwhelming “lol that’s a reputation win” reaction.

That was when peak Weber and peak Chara were both terrorizing the league, and Lidstrom had settled back into being more like a top-5 D. And suddenly he wins the Norris over the guys who dominated the pre-vote conversation. We all remember this, right?

Not really sure it’s necessary to get into “but he had X points” type analysis when nobody seems to think it’s really even an argument.



There is no voting committee per se, it’s just a survey of PHWA membership. In other words, a media vote. So, openly saying “the media hyped him up” is kind of acknowledging a smoking gun.

Ok but just because the majority say something doesn't necessarily make it true...

You mention a peak Weber and Chara terrorizing the league, but even before Lidstrom's last Norris win in 2010-2011, Weber was behind him in Norris voting the 2 years prior with a 7th and 4th Norris placement.

Even Chara had a down year in 2009-10, and this was right after his norris win. Finishing 8th in Norris voting. Again, behind Lidstrom.

The only defenseman that ranked ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting more than once from 2008-09 to 2010-11 was Mike Green, lol. Chara, Keith and Doughty all did it once in those 3 years. So really, more often than not, Lidstrom was still more consistent year in year out than almost everyone else, if we're going by Norris voting.



You said so yourself the last Norris he earned was in 2007-08. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he had a few down years for his standards then had a resurgence year. That's why I mentioned his production. I mean, going from 49, 9th in defenseman scoring, to 62 points, 2nd in dman scoring, would surely contribute to why he from 4th in Norris voting one year to 1st the next year in what was a really tight race.

And it's not like these types of resurgances are unheard of from older players. It's happened with quite a few all time greats in their late 30s early 40s. Sakic suddenly had a 100 point season and was 6th in scoring at the age of 37 after not finishing top 10 in points for 3 years. Chelios suddenly finished 2nd in Norris voting at age 40 after not being anywhere close to a finalist for 5 seasons. Selanne at age 40 had a 80 point season and was 8th in points. The last time he finished top 10? 1999..

And all these examples are way more sudden than Lidstrom. Who went from being ranked 3rd and 4th in norris voting to 1st, and only 3 seasons removed from his previous norris win. Maybe sometimes, players are just better in a specific year for whatever reason. It's not just exclusive to older players, though obviously more unlikely for them.


I mean, put yourself in the shoes of someone who's looking back at this piece of history decades from now. It being a consensus among hockey fans at the time that it was a "reputation" win doesnt really sound convincing especially since there doesn't seem to be anything backing that claim other than "I said so" (assuming nothing new comes to light).

 

[Albatros]

this is a childish response to a very reasonable post that was going out of its way to be generous to you

If you think that Chelios at 30 was better than Lidström when he won the Norris then you're entitled to that opinion, but it's a mere fact that Chelios lost to Phil Housley when he indeed was 30. I'm not quite sure why you choose to take that personally.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Ok but just because the majority say something doesn't necessarily make it true...

You mention a peak Weber and Chara terrorizing the league, but even before Lidstrom's last Norris win in 2010-2011, Weber was behind him in Norris voting the 2 years prior with a 7th and 4th Norris placement.

Even Chara had a down year in 2009-10, and this was right after his norris win. Finishing 8th in Norris voting. Again, behind Lidstrom.

The only defenseman that ranked ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting more than once from 2008-09 to 2010-11 was Mike Green, lol. Chara, Keith and Doughty all did it once in those 3 years. So really, more often than not, Lidstrom was still more consistent year in year out than almost everyone else, if we're going by Norris voting.



You said so yourself the last Norris he earned was in 2007-08. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he had a few down years for his standards then had a resurgence year. That's why I mentioned his production. I mean, going from 49, 9th in defenseman scoring, to 62 points, 2nd in dman scoring, would surely contribute to why he from 4th in Norris voting one year to 1st the next year in what was a really tight race.

And it's not like these types of resurgances are unheard of from older players. It's happened with quite a few all time greats in their late 30s early 40s. Sakic suddenly had a 100 point season and was 6th in scoring at the age of 37 after not finishing top 10 in points for 3 years. Chelios suddenly finished 2nd in Norris voting at age 40 after not being anywhere close to a finalist for 5 seasons. Selanne at age 40 had a 80 point season and was 8th in points. The last time he finished top 10? 1999..

And all these examples are way more sudden than Lidstrom. Who went from being ranked 3rd and 4th in norris voting to 1st, and only 3 seasons removed from his previous norris win. Maybe sometimes, players are just better in a specific year for whatever reason. It's not just exclusive to older players, though obviously more unlikely for them.


I mean, put yourself in the shoes of someone who's looking back at this piece of history decades from now. It being a consensus among hockey fans at the time that it was a "reputation" win doesnt really sound convincing especially since there doesn't seem to be anything backing that claim other than "I said so" (assuming nothing new comes to light).

Did you watch the 2010-11 NHL season?

Serious question.

Because you keep pointing to stats and rankings as if we all didn’t watch the season unfold in front of our eyes.

If you did watch that season, based on what you saw, did you think Lidstrom deserved the Norris over either Weber or Chara?

If so, why do you feel that way?

That will do a whole lot more for your argument than whatever it is you’re trying to do with “Lidstrom scored more points than he did the year before.”

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ok but just because the majority say something doesn't necessarily make it true...

You mention a peak Weber and Chara terrorizing the league, but even before Lidstrom's last Norris win in 2010-2011, Weber was behind him in Norris voting the 2 years prior with a 7th and 4th Norris placement.

Even Chara had a down year in 2009-10, and this was right after his norris win. Finishing 8th in Norris voting. Again, behind Lidstrom.

The only defenseman that ranked ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting more than once from 2008-09 to 2010-11 was Mike Green, lol. Chara, Keith and Doughty all did it once in those 3 years. So really, more often than not, Lidstrom was still more consistent year in year out than almost everyone else, if we're going by Norris voting.



You said so yourself the last Norris he earned was in 2007-08. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he had a few down years for his standards then had a resurgence year. That's why I mentioned his production. I mean, going from 49, 9th in defenseman scoring, to 62 points, 2nd in dman scoring, would surely contribute to why he from 4th in Norris voting one year to 1st the next year in what was a really tight race.

And it's not like these types of resurgances are unheard of from older players. It's happened with quite a few all time greats in their late 30s early 40s. Sakic suddenly had a 100 point season and was 6th in scoring at the age of 37 after not finishing top 10 in points for 3 years. Chelios suddenly finished 2nd in Norris voting at age 40 after not being anywhere close to a finalist for 5 seasons. Selanne at age 40 had a 80 point season and was 8th in points. The last time he finished top 10? 1999..

And all these examples are way more sudden than Lidstrom. Who went from being ranked 3rd and 4th in norris voting to 1st, and only 3 seasons removed from his previous norris win. Maybe sometimes, players are just better in a specific year for whatever reason. It's not just exclusive to older players, though obviously more unlikely for them.


I mean, put yourself in the shoes of someone who's looking back at this piece of history decades from now. It being a consensus among hockey fans at the time that it was a "reputation" win doesnt really sound convincing especially since there doesn't seem to be anything backing that claim other than "I said so" (assuming nothing new comes to light).

I don’t really have any interest in rewriting history that we all experienced.

This was the internet era, the era of NHL Network, the YouTube era, the Twitter era, the HFBoards era, and Detroit was one of the highest profile teams in the league. That team got watched a lot and yes, the consensus opinion does matter in that context.

You asked why this idea doesn’t get challenged… it’s because nearly nobody sees anything wrong with the claim. Lidstrom simply wasn’t the best defenseman in the league at that point in time, and we all knew it at the time.

And yes, the same thinking would apply if we had a bunch of articles from 1945 saying Johnny Clapper’s recent trophy was a farewell gift from the media. Credible contemporary accounts are held as a higher form of evidence than counting stats, and rightly so.

 

[67 others]

If you think that Chelios at 30 was better than Lidström when he won the Norris then you're entitled to that opinion, but it's a mere fact that Chelios lost to Phil Housley when he indeed was 30. I'm not quite sure why you choose to take that personally.

The fact that you are going specifically to the age 30 because you think it is some kind of "Gotcha" because he had a down year to Housley(The Mike Green of that era incidentally) instead of seeing the obvious point that Chelios was a better Dman back at that age than he was when he was a shadow of his former self when he was runner up to Lidstrom's 2nd Norris tells a lot. Im sure you are going to try to make lawyer arguments and say "But you said 30, you said EXACTLY 10 years younger". No, no I didn't. The point is Chelios, Macinnis and Bourque were way better players when they were roughly 10 years younger than the old man versions who were still good enough to beat all Lidstrom's other younger competition and be the norris runner up's at age 40. The 31 year old 1993 version of Chelios was way way better than the 2002 version of Chelios who nearly tied Lidstrom in norris votes that year.

 

[wetcoast]

If you think that Chelios at 30 was better than Lidström when he won the Norris then you're entitled to that opinion, but it's a mere fact that Chelios lost to Phil Housley when he indeed was 30. I'm not quite sure why you choose to take that personally.

I think the problem with your comment is that it infers that somewhat Chelios was a lesser Dman at 30 than Housley which really wasn't true.

Even you know that's not true but yet you bring it up to point out what exactly?

After all Chelios had an awesome postseason where he had a Conn Smythe worthy performance even as his team got swept by the Penguins in 4.

 

[Albatros]

I think the problem with your comment is that it infers that somewhat Chelios was a lesser Dman at 30 than Housley which really wasn't true.

Even you know that's not true but yet you bring it up to point out what exactly?

After all Chelios had an awesome postseason where he had a Conn Smythe worthy performance even as his team got swept by the Penguins in 4.

Norris votes aren't a cake that you can have and eat too. I absolutely don't hold Housley in high regard, but if we do give credence to voters then he got a lot of support as the second or third best in the league that year whereas Chelios really didn't. Chelios simply was better at 40 than at 30, even if it was only a last hurrah.

The fact that you are going specifically to the age 30 because you think it is some kind of "Gotcha" because he had a down year to Housley(The Mike Green of that era incidentally) instead of seeing the obvious point that Chelios was a better Dman back at that age than he was when he was a shadow of his former self when he was runner up to Lidstrom's 2nd Norris tells a lot. Im sure you are going to try to make lawyer arguments and say "But you said 30, you said EXACTLY 10 years younger". No, no I didn't. The point is Chelios, Macinnis and Bourque were way better players when they were roughly 10 years younger than the old man versions who were still good enough to beat all Lidstrom's other younger competition and be the norris runner up's at age 40. The 31 year old 1993 version of Chelios was way way better than the 2002 version of Chelios who nearly tied Lidstrom in norris votes that year.

If you mean 31 rather than 30, then say 31 instead of 30.

 

[Regal]

Ok but just because the majority say something doesn't necessarily make it true...

You mention a peak Weber and Chara terrorizing the league, but even before Lidstrom's last Norris win in 2010-2011, Weber was behind him in Norris voting the 2 years prior with a 7th and 4th Norris placement.

Even Chara had a down year in 2009-10, and this was right after his norris win. Finishing 8th in Norris voting. Again, behind Lidstrom.

The only defenseman that ranked ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting more than once from 2008-09 to 2010-11 was Mike Green, lol. Chara, Keith and Doughty all did it once in those 3 years. So really, more often than not, Lidstrom was still more consistent year in year out than almost everyone else, if we're going by Norris voting.



You said so yourself the last Norris he earned was in 2007-08. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest he had a few down years for his standards then had a resurgence year. That's why I mentioned his production. I mean, going from 49, 9th in defenseman scoring, to 62 points, 2nd in dman scoring, would surely contribute to why he from 4th in Norris voting one year to 1st the next year in what was a really tight race.

And it's not like these types of resurgances are unheard of from older players. It's happened with quite a few all time greats in their late 30s early 40s. Sakic suddenly had a 100 point season and was 6th in scoring at the age of 37 after not finishing top 10 in points for 3 years. Chelios suddenly finished 2nd in Norris voting at age 40 after not being anywhere close to a finalist for 5 seasons. Selanne at age 40 had a 80 point season and was 8th in points. The last time he finished top 10? 1999..

And all these examples are way more sudden than Lidstrom. Who went from being ranked 3rd and 4th in norris voting to 1st, and only 3 seasons removed from his previous norris win. Maybe sometimes, players are just better in a specific year for whatever reason. It's not just exclusive to older players, though obviously more unlikely for them.


I mean, put yourself in the shoes of someone who's looking back at this piece of history decades from now. It being a consensus among hockey fans that it was a "reputation" win doesnt really sound convincing especially since there doesn't seem to be anything backing that claim other than "I said so" (assuming nothing new comes to light).

I think the big thing was that his defense was slipping by that point and most people noticed it.

Regression analytics point to him as significantly worse from 09-10 to 10-11

His defensive GAR tanked

As did his expected defensive GAR

His underlying numbers 5v5 were also considerably worse across the board:

CF%: 57.0 to 51.3
SF%: 56.1 to 49.9
GF%: 54.9 to 50.9
xGF%: 55.7 to 50.8
HDCF%: 54.8 to 47.9

CF/60: 63.8 to 58.3
CA/60: 48.1 to 55.5
SF/60: 34.9 to 32.6
SA/60: 27.3 to 32.8
GF/60: 2.64 to 2.70
GA/60: 2.17 to 2.60
xGF/60: 2.69 to 2.43
xGA/60: 2.14 to 2.36
HDCF/60: 11.7 to 9.7
HDCA/60: 9.7 to 10.5

relCF/60: 9.05 to -1.55
relCA/60: -2.17 to 5.05
relCF%: 4.88 to -3.03
relSF/60: 4.91 to 0.04
relSA/60: -2.43 to 3.83
relSF%: 5.89 to -3.07
relGF/60: 0.78 to 0.20
relGA/60: -0.28 to 0.11
relGF%: 11.69 to 0.88
xGF/60: 0.57 to 0.01
xGA/60: 0.0 to 0.22
xGF%: 5.9 to -2.41

The Wings went from dominating possession with Lidstrom on the ice 5v5 the year before (4th best CF% and 8th best xGF% among defensemen with 1000 5v5 min) to just breaking above even, and they gave up more shots, chances and goals with him on the ice than without. And he went from 14th best CA/60, 32nd best GA/60 and 33rd best xGA/60 among those with 1000 min (114 defensemen) to middle of the pack in CA/60, xGA/69 and among the worst 25 in GA/60.

Granted he went from playing mostly with Rafalski to playing with Brad Stuart, but his numbers dropped across the board and weren’t particularly strong defensively either in general or relative to his team. He also played fewer minutes at 5v5 and was no longer the workhorse he once was.

He was certainly still a quality player, but I think it was a clear example of writers looking at points to determine quality of play. Lidstrom had a lot of points so he must be the best because he’s Lidstrom defensively. But he got a lot of points because of a strong PP year and he was no longer
the same Lidstrom 5v5. I think that’s why it is considered a reputation win because his reputation plus point totals were the biggest factors. In terms of actual play, you could maybe still make a case for him, but I think he was surpassed at that point.

 

[67 others]

Norris votes aren't a cake that you can have and eat too. I absolutely don't hold Housley in high regard, but if we do give credence to voters then he got a lot of support as the second or third best in the league that year whereas Chelios really didn't. Chelios simply was better at 40 than at 30, even if it was only a last hurrah.


If you mean 31 rather than 30, then say 31 instead of 30.

It's clear what I meant. What you are doing is refusing to have honest discussion

And again, chelios being Norris runner up at 40 wasn't him being better than when he was 30, it was lack of competition when he was 40. Those were some soft years for competition

 

[wetcoast]

Norris votes aren't a cake that you can have and eat too. I absolutely don't hold Housley in high regard, but if we do give credence to voters then he got a lot of support as the second or third best in the league that year whereas Chelios really didn't. Chelios simply was better at 40 than at 30, even if it was only a last hurrah.

Look Chelios was the better Damn that year Norris votes being swayed by the PPP that Housley was both guys had 29 ESP and Chelios just brought it defensively but points and Housley led his team in points by 21 points so there is the narrative going on ect.....but no one seriously that season was saying hey Housley is a better Dman than Chellios.

 

[Albatros]

Look Chelios was the better Damn that year Norris votes being swayed by the PPP that Housley was both guys had 29 ESP and Chelios just brought it defensively but points and Housley led his team in points by 21 points so there is the narrative going on ect.....but no one seriously that season was saying hey Housley is a better Dman than Chellios.

When voters were 40 to 4 in favor of Housley over Chelios it's pretty clear whom they considered to be the better defenseman that year.

It's clear what I meant. What you are doing is refusing to have honest discussion

And again, chelios being Norris runner up at 40 wasn't him being better than when he was 30, it was lack of competition when he was 40. Those were some soft years for competition

Why would you say that defense was particularly weak league wide in 2002 compared to 1992?

 

[MadLuke]

When voters were 40 to 4 in favor of Housley over Chelios it's pretty clear whom they considered to be the better defenseman that year.

It is playing a bit with words, but to be semantically anal, pretty clear whom had the better season rather than being the better defenceman would probably be more precise.

When they voted Zhamnov above Sakic-Fedorov in 95, you can say they considered he had a better season, not that he was the better center that year (would they be asked who would they pick in a draft for the upcoming playoff run would give us an answer closer to that).

 

[seventieslord]

It is playing a bit in word, but to be semantically anal, pretty clear whom had the better season rather than being the better defenceman would probably be more precise.

When they voted Zhamnov above Sakic-Fedorov in 95, you can say the considered he had a better season, not the better center that year (asked who they would have pick in a draft for those playoff first would give us more than answer).

Agree. It's about who they thought had a better season, not who they thought was better in an absolute sense.

For example, no one ever thought Henrik Sedin was better than Crosby or OV. (I don't think he had a better season than they did, either, but some disagreed)

 

[SillyRabbit]

When voters were 40 to 4 in favor of Housley over Chelios it's pretty clear whom they considered to be the better defenseman that year.

In 2003-04, Brian McCabe and Adrian Aucoin finished ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting.

Using your logic, they were both better defenceman than Lidstrom that year.

 

[Albatros]

Look Chelios was the better Damn that year Norris votes being swayed by the PPP that Housley was both guys had 29 ESP and Chelios just brought it defensively but points and Housley led his team in points by 21 points so there is the narrative going on ect.....but no one seriously that season was saying hey Housley is a better Dman than Chellios.

By the way, that's even immortalized in popular culture as EA Sports rated Housley third best in the league for their '93 release (Chelios fifth, tied with young Lidström). Make of that what you will, but Housley definitely was widely considered one of the very best in the league at the time.

 

[Albatros]

In 2003-04, Brian McCabe and Adrian Aucoin finished ahead of Lidstrom in Norris voting.

Using your logic, they were both better defenceman than Lidstrom that year.

Some thought so, sure. Aucoin got two 1st place votes, McCabe and Lidström one each. Likewise McCabe got twelve 2nd place votes, Lidström six and Aucoin three. And 3rd place Aucoin twelve, McCabe and Lidström ten each. I remember especially McCabe being very highly rated by some.

 

[SillyRabbit]

Some thought so, sure. Aucoin got two 1st place votes, McCabe and Lidström one each. Likewise McCabe got twelve 2nd place votes, Lidström six and Aucoin three. And 3rd place Aucoin twelve, McCabe and Lidström ten each. I remember especially McCabe being very highly rated by some.

Just to make sure I’m following…

In your attempt to claim that Chelios was a greater competition for Lidstrom at age 40 than he was for Bourque at age 30…

You argued:

-Housley was a better player than Chelios in 1993
-McCabe and Aucoin were better players than Lidstrom in 2004

And this is supposed to convince us that Lidstrom was a greater player than Bourque?

Somehow you managed to weaken the argument for Lidstrom even more.

 

[Albatros]

Just to make sure I’m following…

In your attempt to claim that Chelios was a greater competition for Lidstrom at age 40 than he was for Bourque at age 30…

You argued:

-Housley was a better player than Chelios in 1993
-McCabe and Aucoin were better players than Lidstrom in 2004

And this is supposed to convince us that Lidstrom was a greater player than Bourque?

Somehow you managed to weaken the argument for Lidstrom even more.

The projection I countered was that Lidström in his prime would have lost to the 30-year-old version of Chelios, who in turn factually lost to Phil Housley (and it wasn't close).

You're free to consider any player you want your personal favorite, I merely pointed out what the facts are.

 

[VanIslander]

I have been in the building but of course you could watch entire games online. I admire Lidstrom as closer to Robinson in defensive ability. But Bourque is a bloodhound, a quiet in-place threat. I have been to three Bruins games at Pacific Coliseum (before GM Place, ugh, kill joy) and Ray impressed each time. He ANTICIPATES. He is away from the camera because he is going where the puck is headed, not where it is.

I love Yzerman & Bourque but LOATHE their teams. No past tense. If Gretzky, Lemieux, Hasek didn't exist... i couldn't kick them out of the top tier all time.

I have only memories from the late 1970's, Ken Dryden my first hockey hero.

 

[Boxscore]

Bourque over Lidstrom easily for me tbh. Both were legends but Bourque brought more to the ice in terms of physicality, jam, and aggressiveness. Bourque was also better offensively. Lidstrom was a great defenseman but he was ultra soft... and that usually wouldn't matter vs. the average defenseman... but when you're comparing him to Bourque, it hurts him in a head-to-head. Ray was a horse who literally carried the Bruins on his back while Lidstrom had the luxury of playing with a plethora of hall-of-famers and superstars, let alone a stacked D corps. Put Bourque on those Wings teams and he likely has 8-9 Norris Trophies and multiple Cups while Lidstrom has maybe 2 Norris Trophies and zero Cups on the Bs. For my money, Bourque is the second greatest defenseman in hockey history.