RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pretty much.
The article itself does not say Iafrate was the star of the game. Just that he turned the physically dominating presence of the game. I.E he was hitting everything in sight.

It is a coach, teammate and writer giving praise to Boston's late season trade acquisition. But moreover, the article goes on about how Bourque was in on the scoring of 2 of 3 Boston goals and was crucial to the one he did not assist on as well(He just omitted that part when quoting the article), while talking about how putrid their PP was while Bourque was out injured.

If anything, the article made more of a case for Bourque than against

Not really on-topic, but it does say Iafrate was selected the #1 star of the game.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yup, you were wrong. (MOD)
And posting the article was to disprove your assessment that Iafrate was incapacitated or debilitated for the postseason. The fact that he outplayed the “superhuman†Bourque defensively, even for one game, was my point. Furthermore, iIt would be redundant to mention that Bourque keyed the Bruins PP. Duh.

Yup. The one-legged Iafrate was physical. Amazing with a blown-out knee.

What was made up? I’m not knocking Bourque’s offensive play. I’m knocking his defensive play, specifically in the Devils series.

No. That's how you chose to interpret it. In a previous post I clearly stated 1994, as well as that one. Guess you missed this part:
So, we have statistical proof that between 1991-1994, the Bruins

(MOD)

Prove it. You provided nothing. The stats dont support you. Neither does the video. Claiming Bourque outplayed Iafrate defensively in the Devils series will take work on your part. The stats and game footage don’t support it. So, get to work I guess.

(MOD) The linked article was to smash your idea that Iafrate "blew out his knee" before the postseason and was not healthy enough to be considered a quality member of a supporting cast. Clearly, Iafrate was either healthy enough or strong-willed enough to play through pain and outperform Bourque in at least one game.
If he outperforms Bourque defensively in one game....and Bourque is superhuman......hmmmmmm

Brodeur had no place in the discussion, or at least in the context you were trying to use him. It's a moot point. You ignored my point, which was that you claimed both Iafrate and Bourque had serious knee injuries before the playoffs and were the reason(s) why they struggled defensively. You also claimed (with no proof) that the targeted Bourque's knee was getting "smashed", and it was the reason why he struggled that series, whereas I stated Iafrate with (according to you) a much worse "blown-out" knee was less of a liability.

What was? The stats proving Boston was a .700 team without Bourque over two seasons, or the fact that the Bruins had the 2nd best record in the NHL in 1993?
Please provide proof stating the Sabres were favored, or the Devils were expected to win a series they were trailing 2-0 heading on the road.


So now a team you stated which wasn't "very good" now overachieved because of their goaltender, who just happened to underachieve when they faced a team for two playoff games without their best player?

Already did. Several times in fact, not only in this thread, but in the other multiple threads we had this same discussion.

You either ignored the posts in your response, or made a short, sweeping generalization about the post instead of addressing the points. Round and round we go

 

[Dark Shadows]

Not really on-topic, but it does say Iafrate was selected the #1 star of the game.

Sorry, I meant "Defensive" star. The article just goes on about him being physical, like Eric Lindros, and using his size.

 

[Big Phil]

But you dont win 51 games, have a top-3 defense and a top-8 offense because of one guy. The 1993 Bruins were heavy favorites to return to the CF and many in Boston felt it was the best team Bourque had been surrounded with since early in his career, and the 1993 Bruins had the most wins and points in 15 years. They closed out the season on a 16-2-0 run.

The Sabres were a mess heading into the 1993 postseason. They lost seven straight games to end the season and hadnt won a 1st round series since 1983. They were 0-5 all-time against Boston and lost to them in seven games the year before.

The Bruins were a defense-oriented team who scored goals by way of the forecheck. Any real Bruins fan who watched that season -- specifically the second half -- will tell you that.

I'll say this much, it was an upset. It happens. Bourque as well as most of the Bruins team did not play well. While we rarely saw it happen, Mogilny actually played well that spring in the playoffs. Go figure. For some reason Oates had 9 assists in those 4 games. Can't blame him, and Bourque had just one goal. I don't understand this one at all to be honest. It was unlike Bourque to do this. That's why it is an abberation and not a trend, which is why I don't put a lot of stock into the 1993 postseason. The guy had 180 playoff points, I think we can afford to give him slack on some off years. Do we hang Lidstrom on certain years like 1994? How in the world the Wings lost to the Sharks is still a mystery and while it would have been nice to see their young defenseman carry them further, I think this is on the hands of Coffey, Yzerman and Fedorov more than Lidstrom right? Or Osgood if you want to count that Game 7 blunder. Or why didn't Lidstrom carry the Wings past the Kings in 2001 after Yzerman and Shanahan went down? If you hang Bourque on every Bruins loss shouldn't we do the same to Lidstrom? Or for 2003. Or 2004. Or 2006. All three of those were huge upsets and losses to much weaker teams where Lidstrom didn't play well. Or in 2012 he goes pointless in his final playoff year. But he did so much to offset that other years, that it doesn't matter as much. I recognize that, why can't you with Bourque? If his teams lost every year and he didn't lead them anywhere or contribute then that's one thing....................

I agree that GWOW doesn't help his case by picking and choosing seasons or games that support his point while ignoring ones that don't.

However, what do you all make of this:

From 1984 (the first season +/- was officially recorded in the playoffs) to 1999 (Bourque's last full season in Boston):

Bourque's playoff plus/minus: -8
Bourque's regular season plus/minus: +353

I realize that the time frame is a little unfair to Bourque as it just cuts off his 1983 playoffs when he scored 23 points in 17 games. But still, it's a 16 year period.

It is a little unfair I would say. Just for the fun of it, Bourque's playoff plus/minus is actually +5 for his career from 1984 onwards when they started tracking it. Of course we don't know how he'd do from 1980-'83 but when looking at his +/- I think it is important to see that he was +16 in 1988, +11 in 1990, +9 in 2001. He was -10 in 1992 which is a big eyesore and one that stands out for good reason, he was hurt that postseason and we never see him hit that low again. This is a very grey area as a stat, it has some value to an extent but it is important to look at this through a microscope. No one is going to have a better plus/minus in the postseason than the regular season. He's still +5 for his career despite it cutting off part of it and he's +544 for his whole regular season career. I think the sample size of his regular season wins out here. In the postseason you are facing elite teams, in the regular season you feast on the weaker teams as well. Other than that, what other HHOF defenseman did Bourque play with during this time? I think we can agree that Don Sweeney, Gord Kluzak and Kyle McClaren are pretty interchangeable aren't they? Even in Boston alone, how many HHOFers passed through during his career? Not many. More proof that while Boston was good, they were more good because of Bourque than the other way around, easily.

Chris Pronger has a +40 for his career in the postseason. Scott Niedermayer is a +20. Both are better than Bourque with that stat. But as we know, Pronger had some lean years in St. Louis in the playoffs and Niedermayer was never really the star on defense in New Jersey. So would people say these two had a better playoff career than Bourque? Because I don't think they did.

 

[canucksfan]

Plus/Minus isn't the greatest of stats to look at.

When a team relies on a certain player or line it is quite hard for those players to excel in the playoffs. When the Nucks had the WCE line teams would put a lot of focus to shut them down and they did with great success. Once they got shut down, it was a lot easier to win games. I would assume this was the same thing with Bourque for most of his career. On the flip side Bourque would have had to shut down the other teams to guys (I am assuming here).

When you look at Lidstrom he wasn't the go to guy for most of his career like Bourque. The Wings had a lot more depth and high end talent compared to the Bruins. DId Lidstrom go against the teams top players? Who played against Lindros in 95'? Was it Lidstrom? I seem to remember Chelios being the guy to focus on the WCE line in 2002.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Plus/Minus isn't the greatest of stats to look at.

When a team relies on a certain player or line it is quite hard for those players to excel in the playoffs. When the Nucks had the WCE line teams would put a lot of focus to shut them down and they did with great success. Once they got shut down, it was a lot easier to win games. I would assume this was the same thing with Bourque for most of his career. On the flip side Bourque would have had to shut down the other teams to guys (I am assuming here).

When you look at Lidstrom he wasn't the go to guy for most of his career like Bourque. The Wings had a lot more depth and high end talent compared to the Bruins. DId Lidstrom go against the teams top players? Who played against Lindros in 95'? Was it Lidstrom? I seem to remember Chelios being the guy to focus on the WCE line in 2002.

Lidstrom was the primary guy to go against Lindros in the 1997 finals (which was a surprise - most thought it would be Konstantinov), and Lidstrom absolutely shut him down (with help from Larry Murphy and the Wings' great two-way centers, but Lidstrom was the main guy). From then onwards (after Konstantinov's accident in the offseason), Lidstrom was always the guy matched up against the toughest opposition at even strength, even when Chelios was on the team.

 

[canucksfan]

Lidstrom was the primary guy to go against Lindros in the 1997 finals (which was a surprise - most thought it would be Konstantinov), and Lidstrom absolutely shut him down (with help from Larry Murphy and the Wings' great two-way centers, but Lidstrom was the main guy). From then onwards (after Konstantinov's accident in the offseason), Lidstrom was always the guy matched up against the toughest opposition at even strength, even when Chelios was on the team.

Thanks. Couldn't remember if it was Konstantinov or someone else.

In the 2002 series against the Nucks I know the big match up that the media focused on was Chelios vs Bertuzzi. I think that was due to the physical nature of those two.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Thanks. Couldn't remember if it was Konstantinov or someone else.

In the 2002 series against the Nucks I know the big match up that the media focused on was Chelios vs Bertuzzi. I think that was due to the physical nature of those two.

Also doesn't Vancouver absolutely hate Chelios?

 

[canucksfan]

Also doesn't Vancouver absolutely hate Chelios?

Yes but Vancouver hates pretty much everyone.

 

[The Panther]

This is probably a good time to mention that Lidstrom was a -2 in 2011, on a team that had 104 points. That's seventh worst of 21 players who played 50+ games that season. So, clearly he wasn't anything special.

(Oh wait... who won the Norris that year...?)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is probably a good time to mention that Lidstrom was a -2 in 2011, on a team that had 104 points. That's seventh worst of 21 players who played 50+ games that season. So, clearly he wasn't anything special.

(Oh wait... who won the Norris that year...?)

There are a lot of luck and team factors that go into single season plus/minus, but I think that over the course of a career, they are less of a factor.

Also, one of the biggest arguments usually used in favor of Bourque is his goals for/goals against ratio in the regular season (which is basically a more advanced form of plus/minus). So I don't think it's out of line to look at what those numbers are in the playoffs, though obviously the playoffs are a smaller sample.

 

[The Panther]

There are a lot of luck and team factors that go into single season plus/minus, but I think that over the course of a career, they are less of a factor.

Okay... but Bourque is +494, while Lidstrom is +450. Lidstrom played slightly more games, on considerably more dominant regular season teams, yet has a lower plus/minus.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay... but Bourque is +494, while Lidstrom is +450. Lidstrom played slightly more games, on considerably more dominant regular season teams, yet has a lower plus/minus.

First off, I agree with the poster who says that it was easier to rack up extremely high or low plus/minuses back when scoring was higher. But anyway, Hockey Outsider showed that adjusted to the level of scoring, Bourque's goals for / goals against numbers (which do a similar thing as plus minus) were still slightly better than Lidstrom's in the regular season. I'm not disputing that.

 

[Budddy]

This is entertaining!! Have been following this thread for 3 days now...and I'm travelling in Europe!

 

[plusandminus]

First off, I agree with the poster who says that it was easier to rack up extremely high or low plus/minuses back when scoring was higher. But anyway, Hockey Outsider showed that adjusted to the level of scoring, Bourque's goals for / goals against numbers (which do a similar thing as plus minus) were still slightly better than Lidstrom's in the regular season. I'm not disputing that.

I think scoring being higher is just one factor in the equation. Even if adjusting the scoring to 6.0 goals per game (or similar), I think there were more extreme +/- numbers in the 80s. My impression is that it's because the quality between the best players, and the worst players, were bigger. The span seemed bigger. (I may be wrong.)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think scoring being higher is just one factor in the equation. Even if adjusting the scoring to 6.0 goals per game (or similar), I think there were more extreme +/- numbers in the 80s. My impression is that it's because the quality between the best players, and the worst players, were bigger. The span seemed bigger. (I may be wrong.)

You're probably right. The gap between the great players/teams and the poor ones was most pronounced in the 1970s, but it definitely continued to a lesser extent into the 80s, as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Look, stop giving in to GWOW's smoke and mirror show.

This all started with him saying that Lidstrom out-performed Bourque in the PO's.

The response was instant that Bourque was more important to the Bruins, was keyed on to a much, much greater degree by the opposition and that Lidstrom had a hell of a lot more and much higher quality support around him.

Don't get sucked into an argument about a wonky kneed Iafrate or the superstar Glenn Wesley, a kneeless Neely or a single player in Oates for a couple of seasons. Or engage about side conversations about Leetch or Chelios or anyone else.
That is exactly want he wants.

Anything to get away from the actual subject.
Lidstrom's support vs Bourque's support.

This is now the 4th time I am directly calling GWOW out on it.
Will he completely ignore it again?

Since he has absolutely no leg to stand on in such a comparison...yep, you can bet on it.

My offer is still on the table. You pick Bourque's best supported season in Boston and name the players and I'll do 10 seasons for Lidstrom that will all be better.
You know what, I'll even up it.
I will let you pick the best players Bourque played with for his ENTIRE career in Boston and I will then show you 10 individual seasons from Lidstrom that are still better.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Look, stop giving in to GWOW's smoke and mirror show.

This all started with him saying that Lidstrom out-performed Bourque in the PO's.

The response was instant that Bourque was more important to the Bruins, was keyed on to a much, much greater degree by the opposition and that Lidstrom had a hell of a lot more and much higher quality support around him.

Don't get sucked into an argument about a wonky kneed Iafrate or the superstar Glenn Wesley, a kneeless Neely or a single player in Oates for a couple of seasons. Or engage about side conversations about Leetch or Chelios or anyone else.
That is exactly want he wants.

Anything to get away from the actual subject.
Lidstrom's support vs Bourque's support.

This is now the 4th time I am directly calling GWOW out on it.
Will he completely ignore it again?

Since he has absolutely no leg to stand on in such a comparison...yep, you can bet on it.

My offer is still on the table. You pick Bourque's best supported season in Boston and name the players and I'll do 10 seasons for Lidstrom that will all be better.
You know what, I'll even up it.
I will let you pick the best players Bourque played with for his ENTIRE career in Boston and I will then show you 10 individual seasons from Lidstrom that are still better.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Lidstrom outperformed Bourque in the playoffs at the personal level, at least by a little bit. I believe HO said he tended to take that position, and I tend to as well. It's tough to say for sure or by how much because, as you point out, their team situations were vastly different.

My position is that Bourque definitely outperformed Lidstrom in the regular season, at least by a little bit, but that Lidstrom probably outperformed Bourque in the playoffs. Though it's harder to tell with the playoffs because team effects are a bigger part of it.

I still voted Bourque in the poll, by the way.

 

[overpass]

I agree that GWOW doesn't help his case by picking and choosing seasons or games that support his point while ignoring ones that don't.

However, what do you all make of this:

From 1984 (the first season +/- was officially recorded in the playoffs) to 1999 (Bourque's last full season in Boston):

Bourque's playoff plus/minus: -8
Bourque's regular season plus/minus: +353

I realize that the time frame is a little unfair to Bourque as it just cuts off his 1983 playoffs when he scored 23 points in 17 games. But still, it's a 16 year period.

nhl.com has playoff plus-minus for Bourque's whole career.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8445621

Bourque was +22 for his career in the playoffs, +9 in Boston, +15 in 1983. (EDIT: the link above shows +8 as his career total, but if you add up the individual seasons it's +22. Not sure what's going on there.)

When I saw playoff plus-minus posted, I tried to find something I posted before about playoff R-ON/R-OFF for Bourque, Lidstrom, Pronger, and other elite defenders of the past 30 years. I can't find it now, but I'm pretty sure the results showed that 1. Like his playoff plus-minus, Bourque's R-ON (or plus-minus ratio) was pretty ordinary in the playoffs, and 2. His teams were still considerably worse when he was off the ice.

 

[Big Phil]

My offer is still on the table. You pick Bourque's best supported season in Boston and name the players and I'll do 10 seasons for Lidstrom that will all be better.
You know what, I'll even up it.
I will let you pick the best players Bourque played with for his ENTIRE career in Boston and I will then show you 10 individual seasons from Lidstrom that are still better.

Ah, that's easy. Lidstrom has had Fedorov and Yzerman or Datsyuk and Zetterberg. Not that I am penalizing him for it, but when GWOW starts wondering why there are more lapses in the postseason for Bourque than Lidstrom (which by the way Bourque was still excellent in the postseason) then it isn't hard to see why this is.

Bourque had Rick Middleton and when he was briefly good Barry Pederson. Middleton's fine, had a brilliant run in 1983, but obviously doesn't have the staying power of Yzerman for example. After that you've got Janney and then briefly Oates as your best centers. Neely was banged up a lot but still contributed but in reality since Bourque led the Bruins in regular season scoring 5 times to Lidstrom's 0 there are two things you have to wonder. Was Bourque that much better offensively or did he have less support making it easy to standout? It's both, but the lack of support is something that is very important to factor in when you are asking about playoff no-shows.

 

[Fugu]

I think you guys are putting way too much stock into the Red Wing name. The team started on to its track of sustained excellence of nearly 20+ years, which coincided with Lidstrom's entry into the NHL.

What that means is that they were not head and shoulders above every team that entire time, but that they remained in the elite group for most of that time. Colorado during it's years of dominance was, on paper, as evenly matched to the Wings rosters as any team could possibly be, while having a clear advantage in goal with Roy, excepting the 2002 Cup, when the Wings won with Hasek. Their quality of competition, especially in the playoffs and in the West, was extremely high, far higher than what you had in the East, where only NJD matched that level of sustained excellence, with three Cup wins of their own (with Brodeur, Niedermayer and Stevens on the back end, to name the most prominent).

There's really too much buying into the Red Wings myth happening here. On the flipside, if someone were to ask if the Wings were a dynasty during that period, you'd get the same people voting that they were not, and the last real dynasties were 80s Oilers and 70s Habs. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Here is the breakdown of how well the team placed in the overall NHL standings, what round they reached, the GP-P-+/- of the player, where they finished in playoff team playoff scoring, and where they placed in regular season team scoring.


Based on the data:

1) In 11 different postseasons, Lidstrom finished equal or higher in team playoff scoring than he placed in regular season scoring. Bourque also did it 11 times.

2) Lidstrom finished 1st or 2nd in team playoff scoring seven times. Bourque also finished 1st or 2nd in team playoff scoring seven times.

3) Lidstrom and Bourque led their team in playoff scoring once during years seasons they advanced to the CF or SCF. Lidstrom went to the CF or SCF eight times. Bourque went to the CF or SCF seven times.

4) In the five seasons Bourque led the Bruins in scoring (1985, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1992) he finished 7th, 4th, 2nd, 1st and 3rd in team playof scoring, respectively. Lidstrom never led the Red Wings in regular season scoring.

5) In seven postseasons, Bourque did not place in the top-5 in team playoff scoring. In those four of those seven postseasons, he finished the respective regualr season in the top-5 in team scoring. Lidstrom did not place in the top-5 in team playoff scoring six times. In the six seasons he did not finish in the top-5 in team playoff scoring, he finished in the top-5 in regular season scoring three times .




Bourque

Early-exit postseasons
----------------------
1) 1980 -- 4th overall, lost in 2nd round 10gp/11p -- 2nd in PO scoring (4th)
2) 1981 -- 8th overall, swept in 1st round 3gp /1p -- T-9th in PO scoring (5th)
3) 1982 -- 4th overall, lost in 2nd round 9gp / 6p -- 7th in PO scoring(4th)
4) 1984 -- T2nd overall, swept in 1st round 3gp/2p/-3 --T-1st in PO scoring(3rd)
5) 1985 -- 12th overall, lost in 1st round 5gp/3p/+1 -- 7th in PO scoring(1st)*
6) 1986 -- T8th overall, swept in 1st round 3gp/0p/E -- No Points (3rd)
7) 1987 -- 8th overall, swept in 1st round 4gp/3p/-1 -- 4th in PO scoring (1st)*
8) 1989 -- 5th overall, lost in 2nd round 10gp/4p/-1 -- 8th in PO scoring (5th)
9) 1993 -- 2nd overall, swept in 1st round 4gp/1p/-2 -- T7th in PO scoring(3rd)
10) 1994 -- T6th overall, lost in 2nd round 13gp/10p/-5 -- 2nd in PO scoring (2nd)
11) 1995 -- 6th overall, lost in 1st round 5gp/3p/-5 -- 1st in PO scoring (T2)
12) 1996 -- 8th overall, lost in 1st round 5gp/7p/-4 -- T1st in PO scoring (2nd)
13) 1998 -- 9th overall, lost in 1st round 6gp/5p/-2 -- 3rd in PO scoring (3rd)
14) 1999 -- T8th overall, lost in 2nd round. 12gp/10p/+1 -- 2nd in PO scoring(3rd)

14 postseasons, 92 games/66 points (.717), -21


Deep postseasons

1) 1983 -- 1st overall, lost in CF 17gp/23p -- 3rd in PO scoring (5th)
2) 1988 -- 4th overall, swept in SCF 23gp/21p/+16 -- 2nd in PO scoring (1st)*
3) 1990 -- 1st overall, lost in SCF 17gp/17p/+11 -- 3rd in PO scoring (2nd)
4) 1991 -- T4th over, lost in CF 19gp/25/-4 -- 1st in PO scoring (1st)*
5) 1992 -- T9th overall, swept in CF 12gp/9p/-10 -- 3rd in PO scoring (1st)*
6) 2000 -- 9th overall, lost in CF 13gp/9p/+4 -- T-5th in PO scoring (5th)
7) 2001 -- 1st overall, won SCF 21gp/10p/+9 -- T-6th in PO scoring (6th)

7 postseasons, 122 games/114 points (.934), +26


Lidstrom
Early-exit postseasons
----------------------
1) 1992 – 3rd overall, lost in 2nd round 11gp/3p/-5 – T-10th in PO scoring (6th)
2) 1993 -- 5th overall, lost in 1st round 7gp /1p/-2 -- T-18th in PO scoring (10th)
3) 1994 -- 4th overall, lost in 1st round 7gp / 5p/+4 -- 5th in PO scoring (8th)
4) 1999 – 7th overall, lost in 2nd round 10gp/11p/E –2nd in PO scoring (6th)
5) 2000 – 2nd overall, lost in 2nd round 9gp/6p/-6 – 2nd in PO scoring (3rd)
6) 2001 – T2nd overall, lost in 1st round 6gp/8p/+1 – 1st in PO scoring (2nd)
7) 2003 – 3rd overall, swept in 1st round 4gp/2p/-1 – T-2nd in PO scoring (4th)
8) 2004 – 1st overall, lost in 2nd round 12gp/7p/+4 – 2nd in PO scoring (9th)
9) 2006 – 1st overall, lost in 1st round 6gp/2p/-4 – T-10th in PO scoring (4th)
10) 2010 – 7th overall, lost in 2nd roun 12gp/10p/+7 – 5th in PO scoring (3rd)
11) 2011 – 6th overall, lost in 2nd round 11gp/8p/+8 – T-2nd in PO scoring (2nd)
12) 2012 – T7th overall, lost in 1st round 5gp/0p/E – No Points (8th)

12 postseasons, 100 games/63 points (.630), +6


Deep postseasons
------------------

1) 1995 --1st overall, swept in SCF 18gp/16p/+4 – 4th in PO scoring (8th)
2) 1996 – 1st overall, lost in CF 19gp/14p/+2 – 4th in PO scoring (6th)
3) 1997 – 5th overall, won SCF 20gp/8p/+12 – 8th in PO scoring (4th)
4) 1998 – 3rd overall, won SCF 22gp/19p/+12 – T3rd PO scoring (2nd)
5) 2002 – 1st overall, won SCF 23gp/16p/+6 – 5th in PO scoring (4th)
6) 2007 – T-1st overall, lost CF 18gp/18p/E – 1st in PO scoring (3rd)
7) 2008 -- 1st overall, won SCF 22gp/13p/+8 -- T-7th in PO scoring (3rd)
8) 2009 – 3rd overall, lost SCF 21gp/16p/+11 – T-3rd in PO scoring (5th)

8 postseasons, 163 games/120 points (.740), +55

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think you guys are putting way too much stock into the Red Wing name. The team started on to its track of sustained excellence of nearly 20+ years, which coincided with Lidstrom's entry into the NHL.

What that means is that they were not head and shoulders above every team that entire time, but that they remained in the elite group for most of that time. Colorado during it's years of dominance was, on paper, as evenly matched to the Wings rosters as any team could possibly be, while having a clear advantage in goal with Roy, excepting the 2002 Cup, when the Wings won with Hasek. Their quality of competition, especially in the playoffs and in the West, was extremely high, far higher than what you had in the East, where only NJD matched that level of sustained excellence, with three Cup wins of their own (with Brodeur, Niedermayer and Stevens on the back end, to name the most prominent).

There's really too much buying into the Red Wings myth happening here. On the flipside, if someone were to ask if the Wings were a dynasty during that period, you'd get the same people voting that they were not, and the last real dynasties were 80s Oilers and 70s Habs. Can't have it both ways.

You forgot the 80's Isles.
And while the early 90's Pens weren't a full Dynasty, they were a quasi-dynasty and I have no issue putting the Wings and Devils of the 90's in the quasi-dynasty category too.

So now that we have more or less established that to one degree or another how about we get back to the topic at hand...Bourque vs Lidstrom.

We know exactly what team Lidstrom played for and what side of the equation he falls on.
Lets do Bourque now

'80 Isles
'81 Isles
'82 Isles
'83 Isles
'84 Oilers
'85 Oilers
'86 Habs
'87 Oilers
'88 Oilers
'89 Flames
'90 Oilers
'91 Pens
'92 Pens
'93 Habs
'94 Rags
'95 Devils
'96 Avs
'97 Wings
'98 Wings
'99 Stars
'00 Devils
'01 Avs


Bolder = dynasty/quasi-dynasty team.
That's Bourque's career, a grand total of 6 years out of 20 seasons in Boston where Bourque wasn't facing the prospect of knocking out a dynasty or quasi-dynasty team to have his name on the Cup.

So no offense but no amount of downplaying Lidstrom's team situation and opportunities is going to even put him on the same continent, let alone in the same neighborhood as Bourque's situation.

 

[Fugu]

You forgot the 80's Isles.
And while the early 90's Pens weren't a full Dynasty, they were a quasi-dynasty and I have no issue putting the Wings and Devils of the 90's in the quasi-dynasty category too.

So now that we have more or less established that to one degree or another how about we get back to the topic at hand...Bourque vs Lidstrom.

We know exactly what team Lidstrom played for and what side of the equation he falls on.
Lets do Bourque now

'80 Isles
'81 Isles
'82 Isles
'83 Isles
'84 Oilers
'85 Oilers
'86 Habs
'87 Oilers
'88 Oilers
'89 Flames
'90 Oilers
'91 Pens
'92 Pens
'93 Habs
'94 Rags
'95 Devils
'96 Avs
'97 Wings
'98 Wings
'99 Stars
'00 Devils
'01 Avs


Bolder = dynasty/quasi-dynasty team.
That's Bourque's career, a grand total of 6 years out of 20 seasons in Boston where Bourque wasn't facing the prospect of knocking out a dynasty or quasi-dynasty team to have his name on the Cup.

So no offense but no amount of downplaying Lidstrom's team situation and opportunities is going to even put him on the same continent, let alone in the same neighborhood as Bourque's situation.

In your opinion.


In the opinions of all the guys who played with him, and who coached him (which includes Bowman, Babcock and Dave Lewis<---great one too, ), he was the common denominator and key factor. And he played the absolute toughest minutes a defender could have thrown at him in the Wings' situations.

I've already stated that the statistical arguments separating these leave almost no room for interpretation, yet here we are with a poll that denigrates the career of a defenseman second only to Orr in Norrises and four Cups as somehow overwhelmingly favoring Bourque.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Look, stop giving in to GWOW's smoke and mirror show.

This all started with him saying that Lidstrom out-performed Bourque in the PO's.

The response was instant that Bourque was more important to the Bruins, was keyed on to a much, much greater degree by the opposition and that Lidstrom had a hell of a lot more and much higher quality support around him.

Don't get sucked into an argument about a wonky kneed Iafrate or the superstar Glenn Wesley, a kneeless Neely or a single player in Oates for a couple of seasons. Or engage about side conversations about Leetch or Chelios or anyone else.
That is exactly want he wants.

Anything to get away from the actual subject.
Lidstrom's support vs Bourque's support.

This is now the 4th time I am directly calling GWOW out on it.
Will he completely ignore it again?

Since he has absolutely no leg to stand on in such a comparison...yep, you can bet on it.

My offer is still on the table. You pick Bourque's best supported season in Boston and name the players and I'll do 10 seasons for Lidstrom that will all be better.
You know what, I'll even up it.
I will let you pick the best players Bourque played with for his ENTIRE career in Boston and I will then show you 10 individual seasons from Lidstrom that are still better.

First you said the support for Bourque didnt exist, then you said the support he had was nothing of note, then you said the support of note was old or injured or slow.

If Bourque was such a one man show, why did he place so low in playoff scoring behind the very guys you claim to be nothing special?

Eight times between 1981 and 1993, Bourque placed 4th or lower in team playoff scoring. In four of them he had less than two points.

Again, I'm not using the data to support Lidstrom. I'm using the data to find a way to identify why Bourque in 14 of his 20 postseasons had a ppg (.717) almost 30 PCT lower than his career regular season production (.979)

14 postseasons out of 20. Majority of his postseason career. And I won;t even get into the postseason to regular season +/- differential because the numbers are way too disproportionate for anyobody to deny the picture they paint.