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

[Steve Kournianos]

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.

Bourque didnt help his situation. That's what you purposely ignore.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

He led his teams in playoff scoring twice. A few other times 2nd. He was 3rd in 1983 behind the huge years Middleton (33) and Pederson (32) had. Did I remind you he was a defenseman? Not a forward. He did pretty much what Orr did. Orr led the Bruins in points once, tied two other times for playoff points.

But then you look at what your eyes showed you, anyone that saw Bourque regular or postseason knew that he "was" the Bruins and any success they had went through him. As you can see, it's true. Bourque was a major player - the major player - when they went deep. When was there a time he was just along for the ride?

This is really silly. I mean, Bourque is 13th all-time in playoff points. 3 points behind Lidstrom. 4 behind Trottier. 5 behind Yzerman. 8 behind Sakic. And 16 more points than Potvin. Most of these guys played in a high scoring era too, if not at least partially. We are actually having a conversation where a defenseman with 180 playoff points who had a team that was clearly not the Detroit Red Wings of the 1990s...............and we're trying to pick apart everything and downgrade him as if he actually cost the Bruins a Cup or two, which he didn't.

 

[Oowatanite]

1.Lidstrom
2.Bourque
3.Stevens
4.Coffey

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque didnt help his situation. That's what you purposely ignore.

No, what's being ignored is that Bourque did everything in his power to the full extent capable.
He was singled out and isolated by the opposition to a degree Lidstrom never came close to facing.
And as much as Lidstrom was a big part of Detroit, Bourque was required to do everything Lidstrom was and much more on top of that so enough already why Bourque wasn't able to maintain his regular season level every PO.
I think its been made extremely obvious at this point but you choose to ignore this over and over and over.

As far as your other post, I have never said that Ray didn't have any support, I said that he had much, much, much less than Lidstrom did.
Nice try though attempting to once again skirt the subject.
I'm still calling you out on it and I will continue to until you admit it or stop building straw huts in front of it.

 

[plusandminus]

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.

...

Just want to give you praise for a good and interesting post. Well done.
"Everyone" can go to hockeyref and quickly add up things like GF and GA for team and player, but this looked as if you put a little more effort into it (I may be wrong).

I still think what I stated quite early in this discussion, that Lidstrom's and Bourque's stats are basically equal. I think it is VERY interesting to dig into different calculations/etc to find out which one really were more "favoured"/"good"/etc, but from a more detached perspective I "know" it likely wont give us deciding answers. Too many variables to consider, and too little stats to use as input. It is also an undeniable fact that "randomness"/"luck" play a larger part than many realize. (Over 20 years that will of course even itself out.)

I still would like to see videos showing Bourque at his very best. Stats are great, but I also usually have good eyes so if there are examples of Bourque playing a great overall game I will likely notice it.

I also put quite a lot of respect to what different "authorities" (coaches, players, etc.) have said about Lidstrom, for example the quotes on how his teammates had career years while playing with him. (Of course one can find flattering comments about most players, and teammates/etc rarely point out their negatives.)

 

[Steve Kournianos]

No, what's being ignored is that Bourque did everything in his power to the full extent capable.
He was singled out and isolated by the opposition to a degree Lidstrom never came close to facing.
And as much as Lidstrom was a big part of Detroit, Bourque was required to do everything Lidstrom was and much more on top of that so enough already why Bourque wasn't able to maintain his regular season level every PO.
I think its been made extremely obvious at this point but you choose to ignore this over and over and over.

As far as your other post, I have never said that Ray didn't have any support, I said that he had much, much, much less than Lidstrom did.
Nice try though attempting to once again skirt the subject.
I'm still calling you out on it and I will continue to until you admit it or stop building straw huts in front of it.

Thanks for acknowledging that Bourque wasn't able to maintain his regular season level come playoff time. Significant majority of his postseasons.

Teammates, injuries, coaches....whatever the excuse is -valid or not -- he wasn't as good as he could have been. When I factor more Norris trophies, the Conn Smythe, and less of a drop in production, I have to say Lidstrom had the better career.

Injuries and teammates aren't an excuse to me when you have such a significant dip.

In 80-plus regular season games per season, Bourque wasn't targeted is basically what your saying. Because in the regular season he was uber-dominant. Had teams targeted him, keyed on him and focused on him, he would have never been dominant, or even very good.

But come playoff time, a lightbulb went on in the opposing coaches heads to target Bourque and shut him and only him down.

Just ridiculous. Bourque was targeted and keyed on and war gamed by EVERY coach on EVERY team in EVERY game his entire career.

Entire career.

Nobody said "we'll just worry about Bourque come playoff time, if we face him"

You've provided nothing but excuses. We've provided statistical data proving that Bourque was not at all consistent in the majority of his postseasons.

His gap in production in terms of regular season vs. playoff scoring and +/- totals are too significant to dismiss as cherry picking and outliers. In fact, it's almost a trend for two significant periods of his playoff career.

Lidstrom had better teammates. He outperformed a lot of them offensively, never mind defensively.

Get over yourself with this challenge/calling out BS.

Provide stat comparisons or video evidence. Otherwise, you're not contributing at all.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

He led his teams in playoff scoring twice. A few other times 2nd. He was 3rd in 1983 behind the huge years Middleton (33) and Pederson (32) had. Did I remind you he was a defenseman? Not a forward. He did pretty much what Orr did. Orr led the Bruins in points once, tied two other times for playoff points.

But then you look at what your eyes showed you, anyone that saw Bourque regular or postseason knew that he "was" the Bruins and any success they had went through him. As you can see, it's true. Bourque was a major player - the major player - when they went deep. When was there a time he was just along for the ride?

This is really silly. I mean, Bourque is 13th all-time in playoff points. 3 points behind Lidstrom. 4 behind Trottier. 5 behind Yzerman. 8 behind Sakic. And 16 more points than Potvin. Most of these guys played in a high scoring era too, if not at least partially. We are actually having a conversation where a defenseman with 180 playoff points who had a team that was clearly not the Detroit Red Wings of the 1990s...............and we're trying to pick apart everything and downgrade him as if he actually cost the Bruins a Cup or two, which he didn't.

Some of his postseasons were so bad it's very hard to overlook. In other words, he was part of the problem.

I will say this: it's a personal opinion of mine to put more emphasis on the postseason. It's how I was raised as a sports fan.

I'm of the opinion that Peyton Manning would trade all his MVP awards for one of his brothers Super Bowl MVP's.

I'm of the opinion that Patrick Ewing was not as good as David Robinson or Hakeem.

I also think that Bobby Cox and the Braves should be ridiculed instead of honored for their run of regular season dominance in which they repeatedly faltered in the postseason.

It's just a personal opinion. It's not right or wrong.

Bourque's playoff resume has too much red ink for me. The fact that I watched almost all of his postseasons either live or in person (at times) or via archived footage just reinforces my opinion, and it will never, ever change.

So a stat watcher will say:

"Hey in 1991, Bourque was super dominant that postseason"

I'll say:

"Both Bourque and the Bruins really **** the bed in the CF after they went up 2-0".

Just how I view the game. One bad series you lose if you're upset or blow a series lead negates the previous good series you won, or a dominant regular season.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Thanks for acknowledging that Bourque wasn't able to maintain his regular season level come playoff time. Significant majority of his postseasons.

Teammates, injuries, coaches....whatever the excuse is -valid or not -- he wasn't as good as he could have been. When I factor more Norris trophies, the Conn Smythe, and less of a drop in production, I have to say Lidstrom had the better career.

Injuries and teammates aren't an excuse to me when you have such a significant dip.

In 80-plus regular season games per season, Bourque wasn't targeted is basically what your saying. Because in the regular season he was uber-dominant. Had teams targeted him, keyed on him and focused on him, he would have never been dominant, or even very good.

But come playoff time, a lightbulb went on in the opposing coaches heads to target Bourque and shut him and only him down.

Just ridiculous. Bourque was targeted and keyed on and war gamed by EVERY coach on EVERY team in EVERY game his entire career.

Entire career.

Nobody said "we'll just worry about Bourque come playoff time, if we face him"

You've provided nothing but excuses. We've provided statistical data proving that Bourque was not at all consistent in the majority of his postseasons.

His gap in production in terms of regular season vs. playoff scoring and +/- totals are too significant to dismiss as cherry picking and outliers. In fact, it's almost a trend for two significant periods of his playoff career.

Lidstrom had better teammates. He outperformed a lot of them offensively, never mind defensively.

Get over yourself with this challenge/calling out BS.

Provide stat comparisons or video evidence. Otherwise, you're not contributing at all.

Except here's the problem you keep missing...Bourque, despite as you put it, "not as consistent in the POs as he seemed to be in the reg season". He was still produced offensively at a 20% higher rate than Lidstrom did and he was still about even with Lidstrom as far as goals against went.
So given this information, how is it that Lidstrom how so much more success in the POs?

It's a really simple answer...his teammates and support was so much stronger in both quality and depth.

Hey, guess what? We have come full circle again and here I am for now the 6th time calling you out to show me how this " excuse" isn't an extremely valid one.
Show us all how Lidstrom's teammates and support wasn't an extreme advantage and the difference between Bourque having zero Cups in Boston and Lidstrom having 4 in Detroit.
Just to refresh, offensively Bourque has the clear advantage, defensively, neither player has a clear advantage yet Lidstrom was supposedly better because his TEAM won more in the POs.

Uh huh

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Thanks for acknowledging that Bourque wasn't able to maintain his regular season level come playoff time. Significant majority of his postseasons.

Teammates, injuries, coaches....whatever the excuse is -valid or not -- he wasn't as good as he could have been. When I factor more Norris trophies, the Conn Smythe, and less of a drop in production, I have to say Lidstrom had the better career.

Injuries and teammates aren't an excuse to me when you have such a significant dip.

In 80-plus regular season games per season, Bourque wasn't targeted is basically what your saying. Because in the regular season he was uber-dominant. Had teams targeted him, keyed on him and focused on him, he would have never been dominant, or even very good.

But come playoff time, a lightbulb went on in the opposing coaches heads to target Bourque and shut him and only him down.

Just ridiculous. Bourque was targeted and keyed on and war gamed by EVERY coach on EVERY team in EVERY game his entire career.

Entire career.

Nobody said "we'll just worry about Bourque come playoff time, if we face him"

You've provided nothing but excuses. We've provided statistical data proving that Bourque was not at all consistent in the majority of his postseasons.

His gap in production in terms of regular season vs. playoff scoring and +/- totals are too significant to dismiss as cherry picking and outliers. In fact, it's almost a trend for two significant periods of his playoff career.

Lidstrom had better teammates. He outperformed a lot of them offensively, never mind defensively.

Get over yourself with this challenge/calling out BS.

Provide stat comparisons or video evidence. Otherwise, you're not contributing at all.

I'm a Montreal fan from the early '80s who would LOVE to hate on Bourque WAY more than the next guy. But even I am stepping up here to tell you that you are simply out to lunch here. You are making such a big thing about Bourque's "significant dip", but you yourself showed that even in the "early exit post seasons" Bourque was more productive offensively than Lidstrom. You're basically penalizing him for being even MORE offensively productive than Lidstrom despite being a "one man gang". Good job.

Yes, he was targeted and leaned on heavily every game, and played more minutes than Lidstrom. I'd go so far as to say "way more". Tougher to carry that entire Boston team of the '80s once they got into games 90 or 100 of the season than to be a cog in the Detroit machine of the 90s/00s - no matter how many minutes you play, how large a role, or how deep into the post season you get. The teams just played that different of a 5 man game it's not even funny (basically the difference between a system and NO system - that's not much of an exaggeration).

It's a shame that it doesn't sound like you had the opportunity to watch Bourque back then, nor had the time to go back and watch much of what's available between cable and the internet. Getting mired in or tunnel-visioned on the statistical side of things isn't going to give you the best picture of Bourque at all, though he's impressive in a number of statistical measures, regardless. The problem with Norris counting and the context of facing multiple dynasties (as opposed to being on a mini one) has also been pointed out to you already, yet you keep propping it up to lean on...

 

[Big Phil]

Some of his postseasons were so bad it's very hard to overlook. In other words, he was part of the problem.

I will say this: it's a personal opinion of mine to put more emphasis on the postseason. It's how I was raised as a sports fan.

I'm of the opinion that Peyton Manning would trade all his MVP awards for one of his brothers Super Bowl MVP's.

I'm of the opinion that Patrick Ewing was not as good as David Robinson or Hakeem.

I also think that Bobby Cox and the Braves should be ridiculed instead of honored for their run of regular season dominance in which they repeatedly faltered in the postseason.

It's just a personal opinion. It's not right or wrong.

Bourque's playoff resume has too much red ink for me. The fact that I watched almost all of his postseasons either live or in person (at times) or via archived footage just reinforces my opinion, and it will never, ever change.

So a stat watcher will say:

"Hey in 1991, Bourque was super dominant that postseason"

I'll say:

"Both Bourque and the Bruins really **** the bed in the CF after they went up 2-0".

Just how I view the game. One bad series you lose if you're upset or blow a series lead negates the previous good series you won, or a dominant regular season.

I get what you are saying because I too value postseason play a lot. It matters. But Bourque is just the wrong guy to be picking on here. He had 180 points in his career which was more than playoff legends like Potvin. There are guys who didn't win a Cup or as many Cups as they should have and there are guys who still usually played well and everyone knows the team is much better off with them.

Bourque is similar to someone like Bobby Hull or Stan Mikita. Like Bourque they have one Cup each. When you look at them statistically in the postseason they produced. Hull had 129 points in 119 playoff games. He wasn't the guy you blame for Chicago's misfortunes. In a lot of ways, the Hawks depth players didn't step up. Mikita and Hull and even Pilote did what was expected of them. Glenn Hall at times had some shaky moments and I think he should shoulder some blame as well. But guys like Kenny Wharram and such were no-shows. This hurt when they went against really deep teams like Toronto or Montreal and there was a reason why the Hawks lost to them. Those teams had their stars show up but also their depth players. That made a big difference. Now, there is no doubt Beliveau was still the better playoff performer but not as big as the 10 to 1 Cup ratio will suggest. But no one will call Hull or Mikita chokers in the postseason, because upon further review they did quite a bit for the team, what was expected of them.

And I think this is where people get carried away with a Bourque vs. Lidstrom comparison. Bourque didn't have Yzerman or Fedorov scoring all of those goals for him. Lidstrom did, and good for him because he contributed to a winner. But individually and just looking at things individually between the two of them, I don't think Lidstrom was much greater of a playoff performer than him, because he certainly falls behind in the regular season. The best thing to do in a situation like this if you want the true test to come to fruition is ask yourself if the roles were reversed would things be the same for Lidstrom? I don't think he carries the Bruins quite the same way Bourque did. In fact, there are a scarce amount of defensemen out there that could have done what Bourque did and keep Boston competitive all those years.

Look at Boston in 1987 for instance. Bourque is far and away the offensive leader on that team with 95 points. A young Cam Neely is second with 72. After that it's Charlie Simmer with 69 - an old Simmer. His highest scoring center is Steve Kasper with 50 points. Does that sound like a team that will go the distance? Yet the next year it was Bourque most responsible for taking them to the final. And here we are criticising the guy. Also worth noting in 1987 Bourque was +44 when no teammate was better than +23. This is why the guy finished 2nd in Hart voting and why he finished so high so often in Hart voting that blows Lidstrom out of the water. There's a reason for it.

 

[Sentinel]

But no one will call Hull or Mikita chokers in the postseason, because upon further review they did quite a bit for the team, what was expected of them.

I do. Said so several times. In his 20 year career, playing with a handful of HOFers, Mikita won the Cup only once. To me, that's a major knock against him. But that's another subject.

The best thing to do in a situation like this if you want the true test to come to fruition is ask yourself if the roles were reversed would things be the same for Lidstrom? I don't think he carries the Bruins quite the same way Bourque did. In fact, there are a scarce amount of defensemen out there that could have done what Bourque did and keep Boston competitive all those years.

Look at Boston in 1987 for instance. Bourque is far and away the offensive leader on that team with 95 points. A young Cam Neely is second with 72. After that it's Charlie Simmer with 69 - an old Simmer. His highest scoring center is Steve Kasper with 50 points. Does that sound like a team that will go the distance? Yet the next year it was Bourque most responsible for taking them to the final. And here we are criticising the guy. Also worth noting in 1987 Bourque was +44 when no teammate was better than +23. This is why the guy finished 2nd in Hart voting and why he finished so high so often in Hart voting that blows Lidstrom out of the water. There's a reason for it.

A lonely superstar on a crappy club usually gets more Hart votes than a superstar on a loaded club.

Overall, I think GWOW makes a very convincing argument. Bourque's Bruins of the 90s were very subpar in playoffs, and he did little to help.
The dip in production demonstrates that conclusively.

And, again, I don't know why doesn't anybody acknowledge a simple fact that Lidstrom was better defensively. This is what your eyes are for (stats aren't everything, you know). He was almost never beaten one on one or caught out of position. That makes a better defenseman.

 

[Barnum]

Bourque didnt help his situation. That's what you purposely ignore.

Did you want Bourque to teach Glen Wesley to hit wide open nets?

Let's look at the support of Bourque era teams?

In the early 80s, it was still Park, O'Reilly, Middleton and Cashman's team. Maybe even Jean Ratelle to some extant. How many of those guys made it to the HHOF? Ratelle and Park and their accomplishments can be tracked back to the Rangers more so than their Bruins days. Nevermind, the Bruins had to go up against, in my mind the greatest dynasty in the NHL, the Islanders.

Mid 80s - now this team is more Bourque's team. Take 1985 because O'Reilly finally retires. Keith Crowder leads the Bruins in points, thats right Keith Crowder. Kenny Linseman is next. How many Bruins make it to the HHOF from the 83 to 87 years? Not a single player. Best Bruin players during that era: Middleton, McNabb, Crowder, and Ken Linseman.

Late 80s - Cam Neely, Craig Janney, Bobby Carpenter, and Bob Sweeney. Those are the B's best guys during that era. Neely is the only one to make it to the HHOF. And alot of fans bash the Neely into the Hall selection. During this time, the Bruins have to face the third greatest dynasty in the Oilers.

Now let's compare it to the support Lidstrom had? Or do I even need to bother, there are so many players from the Wings that are in the Hall from those days, it's not funny. And there are still some more that will make it into the Hall that played with Lidstrom.

 

[plusandminus]

A lonely superstar on a crappy club usually gets more Hart votes than a superstar on a loaded club.

That's my impression too. Bourque having "weaker teammates" might actually have helped him, and made him and his stats look better than they otherwise would have. I find we just don't know for sure.

We've seen similar things in international tournaments too. Often there are guys from not-the-best teams that scores a lot of points and looks pretty impressive overall on the ice. Slovakia had some (although I don't remember if they might have benefitted from playing more games against weaker teams).
Anyway, I've seen this a lot. If Sweden play France, some french guy might look very strong and end up scoring the single goal in a 1-3 loss (or similar). Yet basically all experts are certain none of the french players would be good enough to able to take a roster spot on the Swedish team.

And, again, I don't know why doesn't anybody acknowledge a simple fact that Lidstrom was better defensively. This is what your eyes are for (stats aren't everything, you know). He was almost never beaten one on one or caught out of position. That makes a better defenseman.

That's my impression too. And that is also why I several times have asked for videos showing Bourque at his best.
Lidstrom was an extremely intelligent, disciplined, agile and team oriented player, who basically always made very good decisions.

 

[The Panther]

I'm fine with anyone arguing Lidstrom was better than Bourque (though I disagree), but let's not pretend their playoff resumes are in any way a fair comparison! As has been pointed out numerous times, Lidstrom played most of his career on stacked teams built for Cups, some of them helmed by the winningest coach of all-time (meanwhile, Bourque was coached by Gerry Cheevers and Mike Milbury).

I suggest watching this 'Boston Bruins History' documentary, to reflect on Bourque's teams, starting about 1:01:20 (when he's drafted) to about 1:24:45:

Note how he was compared to Bobby Orr when he entered the League and is later said to be on Wayne Gretzky's level.

Then, note they all talk about 1990 as being their biggest disappointment, in that that was probably their best chance in Boston to win the Stanley Cup. Here's the cream of the 1990 roster (that lost to Messier's Oilers):
Ray Bourque
Cam Neely
Craig Janney
Bob Carpentar
Greg Hawgood
Glen Wesley
Andy Moog

Now, check out Lidstrom's best team (Red Wings 2002) when he was awarded the Conn Smythe:
Steve Yzerman
Nik Lidstrom
Brett Hull
Sergei Fedorov
Brendan Shanahan
Luc Robitaille
Igor Larionov
Chris Chelios
Pavel Datsyuk
Dominik Hasek
(not to mention relative 'also-rans' like Steve Duchesne [All-Star; top-5 in Norris voting] and Thomas Holmstrom [future 30-goal scorer])


It's beyond obvious that Bourque had to carry a far greater load of his team's relative success than Lidstrom did. And he did it very well, as the Bruins made the playoffs every year from Bourque's rookie year (1979-80) through 1995-96 (Bourque's 17th season). During that time, they were 1st in their division five times and 1st overall in the NHL twice. And make no mistake -- Bourque was the go-to guy on all those teams, logging the most minutes, leading the team off-ice, and bearing the heaviest load year after year on teams's that were tough and somewhat talented, but never stacked with talent like the Red Wings of the late-90s and early 2000s.

This, of course, in no way detracts from Lidstrom who was brilliant and was the consummate professional. Both players did the best they could with what they had to work with. It's just that Lidstrom was given better teammates to work with.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Except here's the problem you keep missing...Bourque, despite as you put it, "not as consistent in the POs as he seemed to be in the reg season". He was still produced offensively at a 20% higher rate than Lidstrom did and he was still about even with Lidstrom as far as goals against went.
So given this information, how is it that Lidstrom how so much more success in the POs?

It's a really simple answer...his teammates and support was so much stronger in both quality and depth.

Hey, guess what? We have come full circle again and here I am for now the 6th time calling you out to show me how this " excuse" isn't an extremely valid one.
Show us all how Lidstrom's teammates and support wasn't an extreme advantage and the difference between Bourque having zero Cups in Boston and Lidstrom having 4 in Detroit.
Just to refresh, offensively Bourque has the clear advantage, defensively, neither player has a clear advantage yet Lidstrom was supposedly better because his TEAM won more in the POs.

Uh huh

Weren't their adjusted playoff numbers (offensive) come out with Lidstrom slightly outproducing Bourque? Forgot who posted it.

So where's the clear advantage?

It's already been presented that Lidstrom and Bourque were equal in terms of where they placed in team playoff scoring, and if I remember, Lidstrom has the highest adjusted PPG for defensemen who played over 100 playoff games.

It's a valid excuse for team accomplishments, or lack thereof. It's not a valid excuse for such a massive dip in both production and defensive play on an individual level. Plus, Lidstrom quite frequently outproduced his vaunted supporting case.

What's more impressive?

Lidstrom finishing top-3 in Detroit postseason scoring NINE times on a vaunted, stacked, elite "quasi-Dynsaty", including top-3 in team scoring in two SCF runs.

Or Bourque finishing top-3 in Boston postseason scoring 12 times, including two in SCF runs?

What's more impressive?

Being one of the most productive scoring defensemen in history despite being a defense-first defenseman who was usually paired with an offensive partner and paired against opposing top players?

Or producing the same despite playing more and being counted on to "run the offense" as so many have suggested (I think Oates and Neeley were equal in that regard but it's debatable)?

Defensively, You would be hard pressed to find 5, 10 and 15 game blocks through Bourque's regular season career where he was -10, -7, -7 etc. In the postseason, it's a different story.

So you need to prove that Bourque received more attention from opponents in the postseason than he received during the corresponding regular seasons.

I'm not avoiding what you're asking because I already answered it -- Bourque had less support than Lidstrom. Nobody is arguing against that. There are, however, seasons in which the gap between supporting casts is not wide at all (2007-2009).

What I have stated as nauseum is that if Bourque single-handedly dominated and willed his team to very successful regular seasons, why couldn't he do the same in the playoffs?

Reasons we've heard for Bourque's drop in postseason play:

1) Injuries
2) Dynasties got in his way
3) His teammates stunk
4) The other team peaked at the right time
5) goaltending was terrible
6) Poor coaching
7) Poor management
8) teammate injuries
9) He was targeted by opposing teams

That's one hell of a Perfect Storm to happen In 14 of his postseasons and two additional CF for Bourque to have such a significant dip in both point production and +/-.

Another question again is: why didn't these problems surface in the regular season?

 

[Fugu]

<snip>
And I think this is where people get carried away with a Bourque vs. Lidstrom comparison. Bourque didn't have Yzerman or Fedorov scoring all of those goals for him. Lidstrom did, and good for him because he contributed to a winner. But individually and just looking at things individually between the two of them, I don't think Lidstrom was much greater of a playoff performer than him, because he certainly falls behind in the regular season. The best thing to do in a situation like this if you want the true test to come to fruition is ask yourself if the roles were reversed would things be the same for Lidstrom? I don't think he carries the Bruins quite the same way Bourque did. In fact, there are a scarce amount of defensemen out there that could have done what Bourque did and keep Boston competitive all those years.

<snip>

So one of the greatest franchise defensemen of all time, a generational talent, couldn't have improved the Bruins like Bourque did, in spite of every coach and his GM saying he made every single player on the ice with him better?

I'm completely flabbergasted by how Lidstrom's consistency over numerous roster changes and rebuilds is discounted so completely.

Now let's compare it to the support Lidstrom had? Or do I even need to bother, there are so many players from the Wings that are in the Hall from those days, it's not funny. And there are still some more that will make it into the Hall that played with Lidstrom.

Yes, Datsyuk and Zetterberg came into the NHL as 1st overall selections and were superstars on day one. Lewis coaching, Yzerman missing entire seasons due to his knee problems, basically playing on one leg, but sure, Lidstrom was the guy being helped, not the other way around.



One question for the board here. How did you guys rate Marcel Dionne?

 

[The Panther]

Question: When did the consensus magically appear that Lidstrom is better than Bourque defensively?

As to the question of why didn't Bourque lead his team to playoff success -- he did. They made the Finals twice in three years. Other times they made the final 4.

As for Marcel Dionne, he's one of the greatest forwards of all time.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Did you want Bourque to teach Glen Wesley to hit wide open nets?

Let's look at the support of Bourque era teams?

In the early 80s, it was still Park, O'Reilly, Middleton and Cashman's team. Maybe even Jean Ratelle to some extant. How many of those guys made it to the HHOF? Ratelle and Park and their accomplishments can be tracked back to the Rangers more so than their Bruins days. Nevermind, the Bruins had to go up against, in my mind the greatest dynasty in the NHL, the Islanders.

Mid 80s - now this team is more Bourque's team. Take 1985 because O'Reilly finally retires. Keith Crowder leads the Bruins in points, thats right Keith Crowder. Kenny Linseman is next. How many Bruins make it to the HHOF from the 83 to 87 years? Not a single player. Best Bruin players during that era: Middleton, McNabb, Crowder, and Ken Linseman.

Late 80s - Cam Neely, Craig Janney, Bobby Carpenter, and Bob Sweeney. Those are the B's best guys during that era. Neely is the only one to make it to the HHOF. And alot of fans bash the Neely into the Hall selection. During this time, the Bruins have to face the third greatest dynasty in the Oilers.

Now let's compare it to the support Lidstrom had? Or do I even need to bother, there are so many players from the Wings that are in the Hall from those days, it's not funny. And there are still some more that will make it into the Hall that played with Lidstrom.

The Red Wings had players struggle in the postseason as well.

Look at all the top-3 finishes in team playoff scoring Lidstrom had on what some of you consider a career-long Hall-of-Fame supporting cast.

That's been my point all along. I don't need a history lesson on who supported Bourque, or who didn't. Nor do I need a reminder who Lidstrom's teammates were.

The bottom line is that Lidstrom's drop in production between regular season and playoff production (between 4 or 5 pct drop) is ridiculously rare / miraculous for any playoff performer, let alone a guy who played 260 playoff games.

Bourque's drop is between 14-16 pct, which is expected for the average player. When we're talking top-20 of all time players,

If people want to say Lidstrom was allowed to maintain such a "superhuman" clip because of his teammates has some validity pre lockout, but it fails the litmus test as the Red Wings transitioned to a team with much less star power after the lockout.

Who makes the HOF from the 2007-2009 Red Wings?

 

[plusandminus]

One question for the board here. How did you guys rate Marcel Dionne?

I didn't see him much in the NHL during his prime. But internationally I found him to be not so good, especially defensively. Sort of one-dimensional. It made me think of him as overrated. (...and much below Makarov and Krutov).

 

[Fugu]

Found another excellent analysis by HO, on Marcel Dionne. Interesting, some of the comments.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=512805&highlight=marcel+dionne

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Regular season PPG playing with Bourque
vs

Playoff PPG playing with Bourque

Barry Pedersen: 1.24 / 1.53 (+29%)
Rick Middleton: 1.09 / 1.00 (-09%)
Peter Mcnab: 1.01 / 1.00 (-01%)
Brad Park: 0.69 / 1.00 (+31%)
Terry O'Reilly: 0.64 /0.75 (+11%)
Ken Linseman: 1.00 / 1.09 (+09%)
Randy Burridge: 0.62 / 0.54 (-08%) -- was .66/.66 before disastrous 1991 playoffs
Craig Janney: 1.11 / 1.06 (-05%)
Cam Neely: 0.96 / 0.97 (+01%)
Adam Oates: 1.41 / 1.14 (-27%)
Joe Juneau: 1.23 / 0.95 (-28%)
Glen Wesley: 0.57 / 0.45 (-12%)
Dave Poulin: 0.50 / 0.56 (+06%)

Bourque broken down in three phases in Boston (since we're arguing support):

1980-1987 (8 straight postseasons): 1.06 / 0.91 (-15%).

1988-1992: (9 straight postseasons): 1.08 / 0.94 (-14%).

1993-1999: (6 postseasons): 0.91 / 0.78 (-13%)

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Pre Dead Puck Era Bourque:

1228 games / 1313 points (1.07) -- 162 Playoff games / 146 points (0.90)

Dead Puck Era Bourque

384 games / 266 points (0.69) -- 52 Playoff games 34 points (0.65)

-17 % -- Pre Dead Puck
-04& -- Dead Puck.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Bourque's drop is between 14-16 pct, which is expected for the average player. When we're talking top-20 of all time players,

Other players who had a similar decrease in PPG from regular season to playoffs:

- Bobby Orr 15.2%
- Mario Lemieux 14.6%
- Jaromir Jagr 17.3%
- Denis Povin 10.7%
- Guy Lafleur 12.9%
- Bobby Clarke 17.3%
- Bryan Trottier 25.3%
- Steve Yzerman 18.6%
- Mike Bossy 17.2%
- Brett Hull 14.2%
- Ron Francis 19.5%
- Brendan Shanahan 18.0%
- Peter Stastny 11.0%
- Adam Oates 9.9%
- Dale Hawerchuk 13.9%
- Mark Recchi 16.2%
- Luc Robitaille 18.0%
- Joe Nieuwendyk 18.0%
- Bill Barber 14.4%
- Dino Ciccarelli 14.1%
- Mike Gartner 18.2%
- Michel Goulet 19.9%

Let me be very clear: Lidstrom deserves credit for having a much lower decrease in PPG than most forwards. But Bourque's decrease is not at all unusual among star players.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Found another excellent analysis by HO, on Marcel Dionne. Interesting, some of the comments.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=512805&highlight=marcel+dionne

Thank you! I also had an essay about the Chicago Blackhawks and my conclusion was, in general, the four stars (Hull, Mikita, Pilote and Hall) performed about as well in the playoffs as they did in the regular season. The reason the team didn't win more than one Stanley Cup was because their depth players performed much worse in the postseason. You can criticize the "big four" for not stepping up like Beliveau, Howe, etc., but they were not chokers. (But that's a topic for a different thread).

 

[Fugu]

Other players who had a similar decrease in PPG from regular season to playoffs:

- Bobby Orr 15.2%
- Mario Lemieux 14.6%
- Jaromir Jagr 17.3%
- Denis Povin 10.7%
- Guy Lafleur 12.9%
- Bobby Clarke 17.3%
- Bryan Trottier 25.3%
- Steve Yzerman 18.6%
- Mike Bossy 17.2%
- Brett Hull 14.2%
- Ron Francis 19.5%
- Brendan Shanahan 18.0%
- Peter Stastny 11.0%
- Adam Oates 9.9%
- Dale Hawerchuk 13.9%
- Mark Recchi 16.2%
- Luc Robitaille 18.0%
- Joe Nieuwendyk 18.0%
- Bill Barber 14.4%
- Dino Ciccarelli 14.1%
- Mike Gartner 18.2%
- Michel Goulet 19.9%

Let me be very clear: Lidstrom deserves credit for having a much lower decrease in PPG than most forwards. But Bourque's decrease is not at all unusual among star players.

Is Lidstrom getting the credit he deserves then, in the sense of what is it exactly that prevented him from having the commensurate drop to his own team's forwards, the rest of the league and Bourque?