Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[OrrNumber4]

Skill-wise, I'd clearly take Bourque, but in terms of accomplishments he's only ahead by a hair.

 

[dekelikekocur]

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.

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense which he was superior to Bourque at. Maybe if Bourque realized that he could have been better at playing defense and lead his team to multiple stanley cups instead of chasing one at the end of his career as a hanger on.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense which he was superior to Bourque at. Maybe if Bourque realized that he could have been better at playing defense and lead his team to multiple stanley cups instead of chasing one at the end of his career as a hanger on.

First team all-star that season who played more minutes than any other player in the league.

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I have slightly more time for Lidstrom than most on this board...but yeah, that was too heavy handed for me to like...

I think Lidstrom was a more refined player wire to wire. I'm not 100% sure that means better. I may never.

 

[The Panther]

But did Lidström ever take a playoff faceoff in his own end?

 

[Boxscore]

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense

Yes, Lidstrom was great. But we're not comparing him to Bryan Marchment. We're comparing him to Ray Bourque who was just as great and superior offensively and physically.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense which he was superior to Bourque at. Maybe if Bourque realized that he could have been better at playing defense and lead his team to multiple stanley cups instead of chasing one at the end of his career as a hanger on.

i followed hockey for lidstrom’s entire career and i have never heard anyone ever call him soft.

was his greatness misunderstood in the late 90s because he wasn’t a physical defender? sure. was he unfairly perceived early on to be a pure finesse player? absolutely.

but no one ever called him soft as far as i noticed.

if anyone ever did, it was probably a very uninformed person talking completely out of their ass, like suggesting that ray bourque—ray bourque—played like a neanderthal.

 

[Boxscore]

i followed hockey for lidstrom’s entire career and i have never heard anyone ever call him soft.

was his greatness misunderstood in the late 90s because he wasn’t a physical defender? sure. was he unfairly perceived early on to be a pure finesse player? absolutely.

but no one ever called him soft as far as i noticed.

if anyone ever did, it was probably a very uninformed person talking completely out of their ass, like suggesting that ray bourque—ray bourque—played like a neanderthal.

Lidstrom was absolutely soft. He was great but soft. Or... to be more specific... I'll say, "non-physical." Lidstrom wasn't "soft" in the sense that he was a coward or afraid to compete. But he had zero physicality to his game. And, once again, it's not like he needed that element to be great. But Ray Bourque was more physical. When comparing two very similar defensemen, I will always take the one who could control a game defensively, offensively, and would also make the opponent pay a physical price to compete against them, which is why I choose Bourque over Lidstrom. To be honest, I'd take Pronger, Potvin, and Robinson over Lidstrom too if I were building a team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Lidstrom was absolutely soft. He was great but soft. Or... to be more specific... I'll say, "non-physical." Lidstrom wasn't "soft" in the sense that he was a coward or afraid to compete. But he had zero physicality to his game. And, once again, it's not like he needed that element to be great. But Ray Bourque was more physical. When comparing two very similar defensemen, I will always take the one who could control a game defensively, offensively, and would also make the opponent pay a physical price to compete against them, which is why I choose Bourque over Lidstrom. To be honest, I'd take Pronger, Potvin, and Robinson over Lidstrom too if I were building a team.

without getting into the part about preferring a pronger/potvin/robinson,

that’s exactly it, soft and not physical are two different things

lidstrom was not physical

housley was soft

igor larionov was not physical

craig janney was soft

 

[The Panther]

For his career, Bourque was +27 per 82 games played.
For his career, Lidström was +24 per 82 games played.

Kind of a wash there. Bourque played his first half of career in a higher-scoring era of relatively less parity, but then Lidström played his entire career on a stacked, high-end team.


If we just look at the years their careers overlapped (Bourque's last 10 seasons and Lidström's first 10 seasons), Bourque was only a +13 per 82 games played, while Lidström was a +22. Of course, this period includes the Bruins' c.1996 to 2000 decline under Kasper and Burns.

Over these last 10 years of his career, Bourque still had the 10th-best plus/minus of NHL Dmen (Lidström was second, to Scott Stevens), and remarkably he was 1st in points. He was also 1st in power-play points, putting up 68 more than Lidström (these obviously not counting into plus/minus).

Neither player ever played for a really awful team in the NHL... with the exception of Bourque on the 1996-97 Bruins (.372).

 

[dekelikekocur]

First team all-star that season who played more minutes than any other player in the league.

Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about.

How exactly does someone who plays 80 games and only averages 26:06 a game have more TOI than someone who plays 82 games with 27:50 a game?

I'll just go with you meant on his team and not league wide because otherwise, I fear you don't have a clue what you're actually talking about.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

How exactly does someone who plays 80 games and only averages 26:06 a game have more TOI than someone who plays 82 games with 27:50 a game?

I'll just go with you meant on his team and not league wide because otherwise, I fear you don't have a clue what you're actually talking about.

Counting playoffs.

 

[VanIslander]

Bourque only has 18 years as a 1st or 2nd team all star.... in a 32-team league.

Harvey was in a 6-team league.

Just saying...

 

[MadLuke]

How exactly does someone who plays 80 games and only averages 26:06 a game have more TOI than someone who plays 82 games with 27:50 a game?

I'll just go with you meant on his team and not league wide because otherwise, I fear you don't have a clue what you're actually talking about.

All aside, you must have been joking right ?

Bourque played 29:38 a night in the 2000 playoffs (most of the avs by a good amount), 28:32 a night in the 2001 playoff, he was a first team all star, second in Norris vote, 59 pts, +25 in his last season...

What do you mean by hanger on, if it was not just fun jest-trolling ? It was not yesterday but not that long ago, I think we all watched at least the finals, he was not a Panthers Joe Thornton situation at all.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Bourque only has 18 years as a 1st or 2nd team all star.... in a 32-team league.

Harvey was in a 6-team league.

Just saying...

19

 

[K Fleur]

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense which he was superior to Bourque at. Maybe if Bourque realized that he could have been better at playing defense and lead his team to multiple stanley cups instead of chasing one at the end of his career as a hanger on.

I think this argument holds a lot of weight when people put on their rose tinted glasses and start bringing up Pronger in Lidstrom all time ranking debates.

Doesn’t work with Bourque though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

19

Teams or times?

Bourque played half of his career in 21 team league, somehow he got credit for 32 haha

 

[Dale53130]

If you could rank the following defenseman just in terms of leadership, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson, Chris Chelios, and of course, Lidstrom and Bourque, in what order would you put them in?

 

[VanIslander]

19

His 1st team all star in Colorado i ignore out of spite: he should have retired a Bruin. The captain doesn't leave the ship to sip champagne on a cruise liner. Ugh.

 

[K Fleur]

Bourque played hockey, he wasn’t a f***ing sailor.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Teams or times?

Bourque played half of his career in 21 team league, somehow he got credit for 32 haha

Times.

Bourque played hockey, he wasn’t a f***ing sailor.

Nice response.

 

[GMR]

If you could rank the following defenseman just in terms of leadership, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson, Chris Chelios, and of course, Lidstrom and Bourque, in what order would you put them in?

Unless you were in the locker room, there is no way to rank leadership. Lidstrom was not a vocal person but if leading by example is the best way, nobody appeared more prepared physically and mentally to handle the day-to-day pressures. He was a machine.

 

[seventieslord]

Seriously. If crusty old Bruins fans are over it, then maybe VanIslander can get over it after 23 years.

 

[Boxscore]

that’s exactly it, soft and not physical are two different things

lidstrom was not physical

housley was soft

igor larionov was not physical

craig janney was soft

I agree with this.

 

[Crosby2010]

Bourque carried the Bruins for years. He was the straw that stirred the drink on those teams. Also, he was elite right from the start and right up until the end. A first team all-star in his first and last season. Bourque just had a higher ceiling, he did more on the ice, he carried more of the load. This is one of those situations where if you flip Bourque and Lidstrom on the same teams you get better results for Bourque and less for Lidstrom. That is usually the way to tell if a player is better than another, other than what you saw. I don't see Lidstrom with as many Norrises and I see Bourque with more.