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

[Steve Kournianos]

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.

I don't agree with the fact that Bourque was a one-man team. I just don't. It's insulting to players like Rick Middleton and Cam Neely and Adam Oates and Andy Moog and even early in his career with guys like Park, Mcnab, and O'Reilly.

I'm not disagreeing with Bourque's value to Boston. He was their MVP and their heartbeat. But an unreasonable picture is being painted that he was completely above criticism and he was always the last of the 300 Spartans (so to speak) every postseason.

Just wasn't true. If he was a Hart Finalist in 1987, do you think he played like one that postseason?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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?

I actually think that the "who had a bigger drop in offensive production" argument is a red herring. I'll explain why (and sorry if this argument seems insultingly obvious).

Gary Roberts was an excellent playoff performer, relative to how he produced in the regular season. His per-game productivity dropped by just 4%. This is among the lowest decreases among star players.

Jaromir Jagr's drop in playoff production was actually a bit higher than average (17%). Maybe there`s context that could explain some of that (playing lots of games at a young age on a deep team, resulting in limited ice time) - but you can replace Jagr with Orr, Lemieux, Lafleur, Bossy, etc and the argument still works.

We can`t state, by virtue of Roberts having a lower drop in production, that he was better in the playoffs than Jagr. Yes, his performance decreased at a lower rate, but since he was so far behind Jagr in the first place, Roberts was still the weaker performer in the spring.

Obviously Bourque and Lidstrom are much closer in the regular season than Jagr and Roberts - that was an extreme example chosen to illustrate a point. But I`m interested in comparing their actual level of performance in the playoffs. Therefore, one should be comparing their performance head-to-head, not in comparison to the regular season. Even if Bourque`s performance dropped at a higher rate, he might still be ahead of Lidstrom as he was ahead by a solid margin in the regular season.

My personal opinion is that Lidstrom was a bit better in the playoffs but solidly behind in the regular season (the reasoning has been explained in this and other threads many times). Either player can be argued to be the better player depending on the relative weight one places on either. This specific thread asks about `career` and it`s unclear how that`s defined. If it means who contributed at a high level over the longest period of time, Bourque is probably the third best player in history (behind Howe and Gretzky). If it takes into account championships (ie what actually happened, regardless of their team context and irrespective of how good they were personally) then Lidstrom would be my pick.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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

So where's the clear advantage?

Nope, that was even strength only my friend, Bourque still out produced Lidstrom overall.

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.

Don't bring Adjusted Stats in again. They are bad enough for the regular season and virtually worthless for the PO's where scoring levels vary greatly from regular season levels.

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?

Massive dip? I coulda swore you said the average dip is 20% and Bourque only comes in at 14%. Then even with that dip, Bourque is still almost even with Lidstrom defensively and is still better overall offensively.
Soooo...even though Lidstrom is more consistent compared to the regular season, Bourque is still better overal even at his higher reduction. What point are you trying to make again exactly?

Oh and in response to something earlier you said about teams "suddenly" deciding in the PO's that they should focus on Bourque. It was a nice deflection but during the regular season, not all the teams Bourque faced were capable of executing a successful shadow game on Bourque. Come the PO's, the teams being faced tend to be more from the upper half of the League, especially in the old Adams division with the Habs and Sabres who always had strong checkers if not always a ton of scoring.

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?

Funny, I have him 4th in '95 and not the highest scoring Dman
8th, again, not even the highest scoring Dman in '97
4th in '98
5th in '02
8th in '08 and the 3rd highest Dman
Then finally, he is 3rd in '09

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?

Except Bourque had to play both the defensive and offensive role, was paired against the opposing teams top players and did so and was expected to do all that with partners that weren't very strong offensively or defensively.

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)?

Remind me again out of Bourque's 20 seasons in Boston, how many included Oates and Neely?

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.

Again, without context, it means nothing. Show me how Bourque's +/- was vs the rest of his team. Then show me how Lidstrom's +/- was vs the rest of his team.

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

Answered this above.

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).

Bull! This is the first time in this entire thread that you have actually admitted that Lidstrom had better support. Up to this point you have avoided answering or even mentioning Lidstrom's support like the plague and I defy you to show me a single quote of yours that says different.
No, what you have attempted to do so far was to prop up Bourque's support at every turn while avoiding anything what so ever about Lidstrom's support.
It was a valiant effort at avoiding and deflecting but it didn't work, sorry.

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 +/-.

Yes, it is and it happened as anyone who actually watched him will attest to.
The real question is, how come Lidstrom didn't win more Cups?
I mean with Bourque, at least you can say that he and the Bruins lost to more teams that were better than them overall.
How many times can you say the same about Lidstrom and the Wings?

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

Well #1, it's the PO's and it's a more do or die mindset with more intensity and stricter gameplans. It's also about playing more teams capable of playing that way vs Bourque.
Look at every time the Bruins were eliminated, you find a team that had the personnel that was capable of playing a shadow game on Bourque.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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.

I was going to add more after the comma but I guess I posted it before I could finish.

I was talking about defensemen who would need postseason hardware to justify the drop.

Coffey, Orr and Potvin all saw their postseason offensive numbers dive either because they were getting old or simply performed at such a ridiculous pace.

Leetch, Chelios, Macinnis, Pronger, Lidstrom, Robinson, Harvey. They all either matched or exceeded their regular season production over the course of their career.

My issue with Bourque is that both his offensive AND defensive numbers took a huge postseason hit. 1983, 1988 and 1990 don't excuse it for me.

You'll notice that towards the end of his Bruins career, his point totals went up but his +/- took a beating. If you watched say the Florida series, you'll see a guy who was literally too slow for the Panthers counterattack because he tried to involve himself more in the offense and was getting caught a lot.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

I'm saying he wouldn't have done it quite like Bourque did and I say this because I believe Bourque was the better defenseman.

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

Dionne gets knocked a lot around here because he didn't step up in the postseason. 45 points in 49 games is not good for a guy like him. If you are trying to make some sort of parallel with him and Bourque I don't see it. Bourque led the Bruins deep quite often. Dionne never in his career won a 7 game playoff series, just a couple of 5 game ones.

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.


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

It is a knock, as it is with Bourque. Or Hull. It would be nice to have seen them win more than one considering the caliber of players they were. But there is a difference when you do the blame game. Mike Vernon is the biggest reason Calgary didn't only not win a Cup but couldn't get out of the first round. That hurts. Bourque wasn't the reason why the Bruins didn't win, we have things we can look at to prove this. Glen Wesley misses a wide open net in Game 1 of the 1990 Cup final. Probably the Bruins' best chance to win. This is double overtime. Well, what did Bourque do in the game? He scored two 3rd period goals to send the game to overtime. So you can't blame Bourque in 1990 anymore than you can blame Hull or Mikita for 1971. Their stats were good, Hull would have won the Conn Smythe. But Tony Esposito let in a brutal goal from outside the blue line in Game 7 and the floodgates opened. Or Glenn Hall had some shaky moments in the 1960s, Hull and Mikita were usually statistically sound.

Sort of the same with Bourque. The best runs he had his teams played the 1980 and 1983 Islanders, the 1988 and 1990 Oilers and the early 1990s Pens. Even playing the 2000 Stars and 2001 Devils was no easy walk in the park. The point is, Bourque and the Bruins have been on the wrong end of as many upsets as Lidstrom and the Wings.

But the main thing I see with their careers is that Bourque did more with less for longer and at a higher level. This is about all we need to know about their careers.

 

[The Panther]

This is getting ridiculous.

Again, anyone who thinks Lidstrom was better than Bourque is fair-play to their opinion. Obviously, they were each one of the greats of all time.

But trying to lessen Bourque's quality of play due to PPG and plus/minus is just ridiculous. Now, we're penalizing a defenceman (!) for only scoring 0.9 PPG during his very long prime years...? Do I have that right? And every fan knows that plus/minus is the wonkiest statistic to judge players by, especially in the playoffs, where teams normally are facing all good teams (unlike the regular season). Lidstrom and Bourque each faced the other team's top players every night. This means if the Red Wings won (which they did more than Boston), Lidstrom's plus/minus goes up, and if the Bruins lost (which they did more than Detroit) Bourque's went down. I would take the plus/minus into account somewhat if either player had a completely outlier-type of stat that was completely off the board, either to the good or to the bad. But they don't have this.

It's not like Lidstrom was a plus/minus beast in the playoffs, btw. Five times he was a minus. In the Wings' two Cup wins in '97 and '98, Murphy had a higher plus/minus than Lidstrom, but we're hardly arguing Murphy was better, are we? In 2002, Lidstrom's plus/minus was equal to Jiri Fischer and lower than Kirk Maltby's. By the way, in the 1990 run to the Finals, Bourque had the highest plus/minus on the Bruins.

Those statistics are completely meaningless in a head-to-head comparison of the two.

There's very little to choose between them. Lidstrom played a more conservative, better-odds type of game, as befitting a Scotty Bowman/Mick Babcock-coached player who was not largely relied on to carry his team's load for twenty years. Bourque played a slightly riskier up-ice game, as befits the era he started in and the type of team he played for -- one that was hard-pressed to win unless he contributed at both ends. That could rarely be said of Lidstrom in his career.

A better way to compare players than throwing out particularly meaningless statistics is to go back and see how they were appreciated during their careers (very highly, in the case of both of these elite athletes).
How many top-5 Norris finishes did Lidstrom have in his first 6 seasons? Zero.
How many top-5 Norris finishes did Bourque have in his first 6 seasons? Six.

Just sayin'.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

Not really the best comparison, since Dionne never made it past the second round and saw his personal stats in the playoffs tumble, even compared to his own teammates.

Of the top of my head, I can't think of a defenseman equivalent to Dionne, as someone whose own personal performance declined that much in the playoffs. There are several goalies who fit the mold, and I think they are appropriately punished for it like Dionne is. Actually, all that said, Chara until a few years ago had a very Dionne-like playoff rep.

My personal opinion is that Lidstrom was a bit better in the playoffs but solidly behind in the regular season (the reasoning has been explained in this and other threads many times). Either player can be argued to be the better player depending on the relative weight one places on either. This specific thread asks about `career` and it`s unclear how that`s defined. If it means who contributed at a high level over the longest period of time, Bourque is probably the third best player in history (behind Howe and Gretzky). If it takes into account championships (ie what actually happened, regardless of their team context and irrespective of how good they were personally) then Lidstrom would be my pick.

Yes well said - it really depends on the criteria for what the voter thinks of when (s)he sees "career"

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's just it though, can you really say Lidstrom was better or can you just say he was more consistent compared to the regular season?
Because they really are two different things.
I tend to lean more towards the later as the proper way of stating it.

 

[SirKillalot]

I haven't really seen anything that proves beyond doubt that Bourque was better except for getting more All-star votes. And I don't really bother much about that, because it can be a popularity contest.

Apparently Bourque is a god, and the one god that never got his team to win the final (He did win with Colorado, but Boston was "his team"). He actually on paper seems like a choker like Joe Thornton. And, yes, neither deserves that mark.

One thing people don't seem to care about, is how different the eras was. And, how much development it has been in the NHL when it comes to better overall rosters. The bottom four d-men are better in general now than before. The bottom six forwards are better in general now than before. The overall pace and size is faster & bigger now than before. The goalies are better now than before(and equipment). And the league is bigger now than before. This is were I have a problem with adjusted stats. One never knows how it would have really been. It's a guess when it comes to so completely different eras. Who knows? Maybe Lidstrom would have adapted differently if he played in the 80's and been an offensive juggernaut. Who knows? One can only speculate.

Now, considering all that. I'd easily rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. It isn't even a question. Without him Detroit would never have won 4 cups or be in 6 finals. Not a chance. He made everyone on his team better. Now, Bourque isn't significantly worse, but clearly behind. If we give boxing scores. It's a 116-112 win for Lidstrom. Might be 115-113 if you count in Bourque's offensive scoring from the high scoring era.

We went from a contender with Lidstrom to a 6th-8th team/might miss Playoffs without him.

Also have to have in perspective that Lidstrom had to adapt more getting into the NHL than Bourque. Coming from Sweden and big rinks to a whole other type of game & environment. And, when it comes to him having a much more different playing style than the regular d-man out there (when it comes to not being that physical and more positional doing his thing quietly, and still almost everyone of the forwards rated him as the best d-man & the most difficult to play against).

This type vote is similar with Mats Sundin when he is in thse types of votes. He get's so much flak(?) for not being able to win it once. Yet, Bourque almost did the exact same and get's a free ride. "It's all about individual efforts..." Well, Lidstroms best individual effort is that he made his teammates better. By doing the right things on the ice and by how he acted off the ice. That's why he has 4 cups and Bourque has 1.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Nope, that was even strength only my friend, Bourque still out produced Lidstrom overall.

Now we're really chipping away at your claims. Earlier you stated that Lidstrom wasn't close to Bourque offensively, and now you are forced to admit Lidstrom out-produced Bourque at even strength once their stats are properly adjusted due to the significant advantages Bourque enjoyed courtesy of the era he played in.

Don't bring Adjusted Stats in again. They are bad enough for the regular season and virtually worthless for the PO's where scoring levels vary greatly from regular season levels.

Of course you dismiss them out of hand. They don't support your weak argument. Pages upon pages of data has been provided to you, and you dismiss all of it. Data...not opinions. Denying stats or advanced stats is a knee-jerk reaction to being wrong, or being scared to admit it.

Massive dip? I coulda swore you said the average dip is 20% and Bourque only comes in at 14%. Then even with that dip, Bourque is still almost even with Lidstrom defensively and is still better overall offensively.
Soooo...even though Lidstrom is more consistent compared to the regular season, Bourque is still better overal even at his higher reduction. What point are you trying to make again exactly?

"Almost even" isn't ahead. Thank you for admitting that Bourque was lesser defensively than Lidstrom and acknowledging that Lidstrom was better offensively at even strength. The data you were provided free of charge clearly shows that one player did not perform as well as the other. That's why you used injuries and made-up Dynasties (which you renamed "Quasi Dynasty" after being called out on it LOL) as an excuse.

Oh and in response to something earlier you said about teams "suddenly" deciding in the PO's that they should focus on Bourque. It was a nice deflection but during the regular season, not all the teams Bourque faced were capable of executing a successful shadow game on Bourque. Come the PO's, the teams being faced tend to be more from the upper half of the League, especially in the old Adams division with the Habs and Sabres who always had strong checkers if not always a ton of scoring.

OK. So Bourque struggled under pressure and checking in the postseason from teams within his division. Based on the drop in Bourque's production, the increase in his on-ice goals against, and 3/4 of a career worth of playoff failure, I would say most teams were pretty successful at shutting him down.

Funny, I have him 4th in '95 and not the highest scoring Dman
8th, again, not even the highest scoring Dman in '97
4th in '98
5th in '02
8th in '08 and the 3rd highest Dman
Then finally, he is 3rd in '09

No. Just stop it. You're wasting my time responding to your inaccurate nonsense.
He was tied for 3rd in overall team playoff scoring in 1998.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0000341998.html

Except Bourque had to play both the defensive and offensive role, was paired against the opposing teams top players and did so and was expected to do all that with partners that weren't very strong offensively or defensively.

They seemed to do just fine in the regular season. There were at least five seasons where Bourque either tied of finished below fellow d-men in team playoff scoring. If Bourque was getting neutralized (which he was), then that was on him. He was rarely, if ever, neutralized in the regular season.

Proof was already given that there were nights where the Bruins won with effective support on defense (Game 1 of Habs series in 1994 is just one of several examples), and that the Bruins won playoff games without Bourque playing at all (Hartford series and Montreal series). Further poof was given that the Bruins not only did well in regular season without Bourque (.700 winning pct in 18 games between 1993 and 1994), but also played their best game of the 1992 CF (Game 1) without Bourque in the lineup.

Remind me again out of Bourque's 20 seasons in Boston, how many included Oates and Neely?

Between 1987 and 1996 -- Just half of his career. Janney a slight drop below Oates but he most certainly was the best playmaker on the team.

Again, without context, it means nothing. Show me how Bourque's +/- was vs the rest of his team. Then show me how Lidstrom's +/- was vs the rest of his team.

You're the one that has to debunk the disparity in +/-. I'm using the raw numbers. You've provided nothing but opinion. Prove that Bourque's massive drop in +/- in the postseason was a career-wide anomaly.

Answered this above.

You gave an opinion. Please provide factual data. Please provide proof that teams treated Bourque differently in the playoffs. Several sources would be nice.

Bull! This is the first time in this entire thread that you have actually admitted that Lidstrom had better support. Up to this point you have avoided answering or even mentioning Lidstrom's support like the plague and I defy you to show me a single quote of yours that says different.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89346957&postcount=281
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89311505&postcount=244

I also listed the years that Detroit was clearly a superior regular season team. I thought the Red Wings being superior was implied, but some people just like to waste time I guess.

My issue is with what Bourque DIDNT do ine postseason. I thought I was clear on that. Lidstrom's teammates have nothing to do with that.

No, what you have attempted to do so far was to prop up Bourque's support at every turn while avoiding anything what so ever about Lidstrom's support.
It was a valiant effort at avoiding and deflecting but it didn't work, sorry.

I provided raw data and some opinion. Youre perfectly entitled to dismiss them or ignore them or disagree with them. The postseason data wont change if you refresh the page.

Yes, it is and it happened as anyone who actually watched him will attest to.
The real question is, how come Lidstrom didn't win more Cups?
I mean with Bourque, at least you can say that he and the Bruins lost to more teams that were better than them overall.
How many times can you say the same about Lidstrom and the Wings?

Again, this is where we disagree. Losing to an eventual Cup champion is a hollow victory, if that. It's a knee-jerk consolation to try to hide the fact that your team is not playing anymore. Some people buy it. Others don't.

Losing is losing. Nothing lessens the blow when you get bounced in the 1st round or get dominated after you took a 2-0 lead in a series.

As for Lidstrom, yes the Wings have been chokers as well before and during their run of Cups. Has nothing to do with Bourque's postseason shortcomings you keep denying.

Well #1, it's the PO's and it's a more do or die mindset with more intensity and stricter gameplans. It's also about playing more teams capable of playing that way vs Bourque.
Look at every time the Bruins were eliminated, you find a team that had the personnel that was capable of playing a shadow game on Bourque

.

A guy getting neutralized in the playoffs means he's not doing his job. The other guy is. Not an excuse.

 

[Wrath]

I haven't really seen anything that proves beyond doubt that Bourque was better except for getting more All-star votes. And I don't really bother much about that, because it can be a popularity contest.

Apparently Bourque is a god, and the one god that never got his team to the final. He actually on paper seems like a choker like Joe Thornton. And, yes, neither deserves that mark.

One thing people don't seem to care about, is how different the eras was. And, how much development it has been in the NHL when it comes to better overall rosters. The bottom four d-men are better in general now than before. The bottom six forwards are better in general now than before. The overall pace and size is faster & bigger now than before. The goalies are better now than before(and equipment). And the league is bigger now than before. This is were I have a problem with adjusted stats. One never knows how it would have really been. It's a guess when it comes to so completely different eras. Who knows? Maybe Lidstrom would have adapted differently if he played in the 80's and been an offensive juggernaut. Who know? One can only speculate.

Now, considering all that. I'd easily rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. It isn't even a question. Without him Detroit would never have won 4 cups or be in 6 finals. Not a chance. He made everyone on his team better. Now, Bourque isn't significantly worse, but clearly behind. If we give boxing scores. It's a 116-112 win for Lidstrom. Might be 115-113 if you count in Bourque's offensive scoring from the high scoring era.

We went from a contender with Lidstrom to a 6th-8th team/might miss Playoffs without him.

Also have to have in perspective that Lidstrom had to adapt more getting into the NHL than Bourque. Coming from Sweden and big rinks to a whole other type of game & environment. And, when it comes to him having a much more different playing style than the regular d-man out there (when it comes to not being that physical and more positional doing his thing quietly, and still almost everyone of the forwards rated him as the best d-man & the most difficult to play against).

This type vote is similar with Mats Sundin when he is in thse types of votes. He get's so much flak(?) for not being able to win it once. Yet, Bourque almost did the exact same and get's a free ride. "It's all about individual efforts..." Well, Lidstroms best individual effort is that he made his teammates better. By doing the right things on the ice and by how he acted off the ice. That's why he has 4 cups and Bourque has 1.

So the Norris vote is not a popularity contest??? See 2011.


Also Bourque never brought his team to the finals? Did 1988 and 1990 suddenly never happen? Did 2001 never happen?


_______

As an aside, I don't have an issue with people preferring Lidstrom to Bourque, just like I can lean either way on Hasek/Roy. Lidstrom had a better playoff career, yes he was put in a much better position to succeed, but he succeeded. There have been plenty of players who were put in great positions to succeed, and didn't. So you do have to give credit to Lidstrom for fulfilling his potential in the playoffs.

At the same time it's hard to blame Bourque for not winning in Boston given the absurd cheapness of that organization in Bourque's prime years. If Boston won in 1988 or 1990 it would have been an even bigger upset than Roy dragging the Habs to the cup in 1993.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

I actually think that the "who had a bigger drop in offensive production" argument is a red herring. I'll explain why (and sorry if this argument seems insultingly obvious).

Gary Roberts was an excellent playoff performer, relative to how he produced in the regular season. His per-game productivity dropped by just 4%. This is among the lowest decreases among star players.

Jaromir Jagr's drop in playoff production was actually a bit higher than average (17%). Maybe there`s context that could explain some of that (playing lots of games at a young age on a deep team, resulting in limited ice time) - but you can replace Jagr with Orr, Lemieux, Lafleur, Bossy, etc and the argument still works.

We can`t state, by virtue of Roberts having a lower drop in production, that he was better in the playoffs than Jagr. Yes, his performance decreased at a lower rate, but since he was so far behind Jagr in the first place, Roberts was still the weaker performer in the spring.

Obviously Bourque and Lidstrom are much closer in the regular season than Jagr and Roberts - that was an extreme example chosen to illustrate a point. But I`m interested in comparing their actual level of performance in the playoffs. Therefore, one should be comparing their performance head-to-head, not in comparison to the regular season. Even if Bourque`s performance dropped at a higher rate, he might still be ahead of Lidstrom as he was ahead by a solid margin in the regular season.

My personal opinion is that Lidstrom was a bit better in the playoffs but solidly behind in the regular season (the reasoning has been explained in this and other threads many times). Either player can be argued to be the better player depending on the relative weight one places on either. This specific thread asks about `career` and it`s unclear how that`s defined. If it means who contributed at a high level over the longest period of time, Bourque is probably the third best player in history (behind Howe and Gretzky). If it takes into account championships (ie what actually happened, regardless of their team context and irrespective of how good they were personally) then Lidstrom would be my pick.

I stated it several times. People are denying Bourque was ever ineffective in the postseason. This is simply not true.

If you physically watch Bourque's entire postseason catalog with an objective lens, you will see that the stat sheets ARE in fact telling, and the +/- IS a telling stat.

When did Bourque ever shut down the best in the game in the postseason? I you look across Bourque's postseason career, he's never carried a team to beat a team they weren't supposed to beat, or a team with the game's best talents.

Teams Boston beat in the postseason:

1999 Carolina
1994 Montreal
1992 Montreal
1992 Buffalo
1991 Hartford
1991 Montreal
1990 Washington
1990 Montreal
1990 Hartford
1989 Buffalo
1988 Devils
1988 Montreal
1988 Buffalo
1983 Buffalo
1983 Quebec
1982 Buffalo
1980 Pittsburgh

I view this list quite simply -- With Bourque at the helm for almost 20 postseasons, the only noteworthy team Boston beat in the postseason were the Habs -- a division rival.

 

[canucksfan]

I haven't really seen anything that proves beyond doubt that Bourque was better except for getting more All-star votes. And I don't really bother much about that, because it can be a popularity contest.

Apparently Bourque is a god, and the one god that never got his team to the final. He actually on paper seems like a choker like Joe Thornton. And, yes, neither deserves that mark.

One thing people don't seem to care about, is how different the eras was. And, how much development it has been in the NHL when it comes to better overall rosters. The bottom four d-men are better in general now than before. The bottom six forwards are better in general now than before. The overall pace and size is faster & bigger now than before. The goalies are better now than before(and equipment). And the league is bigger now than before. This is were I have a problem with adjusted stats. One never knows how it would have really been. It's a guess when it comes to so completely different eras. Who knows? Maybe Lidstrom would have adapted differently if he played in the 80's and been an offensive juggernaut. Who know? One can only speculate.

Now, considering all that. I'd easily rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. It isn't even a question. Without him Detroit would never have won 4 cups or be in 6 finals. Not a chance. He made everyone on his team better. Now, Bourque isn't significantly worse, but clearly behind. If we give boxing scores. It's a 116-112 win for Lidstrom. Might be 115-113 if you count in Bourque's offensive scoring from the high scoring era.

We went from a contender with Lidstrom to a 6th-8th team/might miss Playoffs without him.

Also have to have in perspective that Lidstrom had to adapt more getting into the NHL than Bourque. Coming from Sweden and big rinks to a whole other type of game & environment. And, when it comes to him having a much more different playing style than the regular d-man out there (when it comes to not being that physical and more positional doing his thing quietly, and still almost everyone of the forwards rated him as the best d-man & the most difficult to play against).

This type vote is similar with Mats Sundin when he is in thse types of votes. He get's so much flak(?) for not being able to win it once. Yet, Bourque almost did the exact same and get's a free ride. "It's all about individual efforts..." Well, Lidstroms best individual effort is that he made his teammates better. By doing the right things on the ice and by how he acted off the ice. That's why he has 4 cups and Bourque has 1.

All Star games are voted by the fans. Team All Stars are not voted by the fans and are credible. Bourque had 19 of them, Lidstrom 12.

 

[The Panther]

Apparently Bourque is a god

That's probably over-stating it. I'd say he's more like a divine entity, with his own seat in heaven.

Well, actually, he probably is a god.


The fact that you aren't even aware that Bourque made the Finals three times and won the Stanley Cup perhaps suggests you aren't the most qualified person to distinguish him from another star player. (What it most likely suggests is that you never saw Bourque play.)

 

[SirKillalot]

That's probably over-stating it. I'd say he's more like a divine entity, with his own seat in heaven.

Well, actually, he probably is a god.


The fact that you aren't even aware that Bourque made the Finals three times and won the Stanley Cup perhaps suggests you aren't the most qualified person to distinguish him from another star player. (What it most likely suggests is that you never saw Bourque play.)

Sorry, it should have said win the final. Yeah he did in 2001 with Colorado. But "his team" was Boston.

And, actually yes. I didn't see much of his early play. Considering I'm born in 1986, and in a country that almost doesn't know what NHL is, and considering the time zone difference. Luckily we have Internet!

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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,

14-16% drop from what? Bourque's obscenely high and unparalleled career numbers? Exactly. And that dip still put him on almost level ground (once adjusted) with Lidstrom in the end? Yeah, then I guess it's worth noting that Bourque "dropped" from superhuman in the regular season to ~equal to Lidstrom in terms of playoff production... on worse teams.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

As an aside, I don't have an issue with people preferring Lidstrom to Bourque, just like I can lean either way on Hasek/Roy. Lidstrom had a better playoff career, yes he was put in a much better position to succeed, but he succeeded. There have been plenty of players who were put in great positions to succeed, and didn't. So you do have to give credit to Lidstrom for fulfilling his potential in the playoffs.

At the same time it's hard to blame Bourque for not winning in Boston given the absurd cheapness of that organization in Bourque's prime years. If Boston won in 1988 or 1990 it would have been an even bigger upset than Roy dragging the Habs to the cup in 1993.

Absolutely. On both counts.

 

[overg]

How many top-5 Norris finishes did Lidstrom have in his first 9 seasons? Zero.
How many top-5 Norris finishes did Bourque have in his first 9 seasons? Nine.

I believe Bourque was the overall better defenseman, but I've never really cared for this argument (which is slightly factually inaccurate, btw, Lidstrom started his run of Norris runner-ups in '98, his 7th season. But I don't think your point entirely hinges on this fact so it's not the thrust of my critique). Here's why . . .

How many top 5 Norris finishes would Bourque have had if he had started his career in 1991, and had to face the same competition (including the prime version of himself that Lidstrom faced)? I think you can make an argument that he would have done better than Lidstrom did, but it's not nearly as clear cut as the numbers you're citing would suggest.

The argument often goes that Lidstrom didn't start competing Norrises until the competition died down. Which is true. But it's also true that there were few (maybe no?) harder times in history to *start* competing for the Norris than when Lidstrom broke into the league (and I'm very deliberately using "competing" rather than "winning", because obviously it was harder to start winning them in Orr's day, but that's an unfair comparison for every non-Orr defenseman in history, including Bourque and Lidstrom).

The other thing to point out is that Bourque never finished higher in Norris voting than Lidstrom starting in 1997, which was only Lidstrom's 6th season.

My sources, btw. Hopefully I'm accurately stating things. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=6536156&postcount=104

So my point once again is not to say Lidstrom was better than Bourque, or even to argue that Lidstrom started his career as strong as Bourque. It's just that I think it's somewhat closer than their Norris finishes would indicate.

On the flip side, I think the end of Bourque's career would look even more impressive than it already does from a Norris-vote perspective if he had started when Lidstrom did.

 

[67 others]

I haven't really seen anything that proves beyond doubt that Bourque was better except for getting more All-star votes. And I don't really bother much about that, because it can be a popularity contest.

Apparently Bourque is a god, and the one god that never got his team to the final. He actually on paper seems like a choker like Joe Thornton. And, yes, neither deserves that mark.

One thing people don't seem to care about, is how different the eras was. And, how much development it has been in the NHL when it comes to better overall rosters. The bottom four d-men are better in general now than before. The bottom six forwards are better in general now than before. The overall pace and size is faster & bigger now than before. The goalies are better now than before(and equipment). And the league is bigger now than before. This is were I have a problem with adjusted stats. One never knows how it would have really been. It's a guess when it comes to so completely different eras. Who knows? Maybe Lidstrom would have adapted differently if he played in the 80's and been an offensive juggernaut. Who know? One can only speculate.

Now, considering all that. I'd easily rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque. It isn't even a question. Without him Detroit would never have won 4 cups or be in 6 finals. Not a chance. He made everyone on his team better. Now, Bourque isn't significantly worse, but clearly behind. If we give boxing scores. It's a 116-112 win for Lidstrom. Might be 115-113 if you count in Bourque's offensive scoring from the high scoring era.

We went from a contender with Lidstrom to a 6th-8th team/might miss Playoffs without him.

Also have to have in perspective that Lidstrom had to adapt more getting into the NHL than Bourque. Coming from Sweden and big rinks to a whole other type of game & environment. And, when it comes to him having a much more different playing style than the regular d-man out there (when it comes to not being that physical and more positional doing his thing quietly, and still almost everyone of the forwards rated him as the best d-man & the most difficult to play against).

This type vote is similar with Mats Sundin when he is in thse types of votes. He get's so much flak(?) for not being able to win it once. Yet, Bourque almost did the exact same and get's a free ride. "It's all about individual efforts..." Well, Lidstroms best individual effort is that he made his teammates better. By doing the right things on the ice and by how he acted off the ice. That's why he has 4 cups and Bourque has 1.

Bro, come on.
Went from the last 3 years with Lidstrom, 102 points, 104 points, 102 points.

Then a 48 game season with 56 points. The division featuring a young powerful Chicago team and up and coming Blues squad. Works out to 96 points in a full season. Also lost some depth with Hudler, Stuart to go along with Lidstrom leaving. All forwards are getting older quick even before Lidstrom retired.

This past season, had 93 points and the top 2 two way forwards Datsyuk and Zetts missed half the season each and were not 100% when they actually played. And half the team was injured at times with Babcock playing the young guys to compensate.

 

[Barnum]

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?

Are you forgetting he carried the Bruins to the Finals almost singlehandedly? Look at those rosters? If I didn't name a bunch of them in my last post would you have known half of them? I seriously doubt you would have but I bet almost everybody could rattle off 5 teammates for Lidstrom for any given period.

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

Yes, I seamlessly never ending list of HHOFers that replaced each other. Hey, I am not begrudging what the Wings did, it's great that they had a wonderful owner instead of penny pinching Sinden and Jacobs.

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.

Wow way to fast forward to after the Stanley Cup years and into the less than stellar days.

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

Interestingly enough, I was going to mention Marcel Dionne in this thread. I think Dionne was an amazing player, he gets bashed too much for his playoff history but that's my opinion.

 

[The Panther]

Overg, you are quite right about the Norris runner-up for Lidstrom in '98; I will correct my post (above).

As for Lidstrom not finishing behind Bourque from 1997... I mean, that's when Bourque was finishing his 18th season. At the same age, Lidstrom finished behind Mike Green in voting (although Lidstrom did win one more Norris, amazingly, at age 40).

 

[overg]

Overg, you are quite right about the Norris runner-up for Lidstrom in '98; I will correct my post (above).

As for Lidstrom not finishing behind Bourque from 1997... I mean, that's when Bourque was finishing his 18th season. At the same age, Lidstrom finished behind Mike Green in voting (although Lidstrom did win one more Norris, amazingly, at age 40).

That's a totally fair point to bring up. My point is merely that "timing is everything" when it comes to these things. I think it's fair to project Lindstrom wins fewer Norrises if he starts a decade earlier (and thus faces much tougher competition in his later years) , but if you argue that I think you also have to recognize Bourque's amazing out-of-the gate Norris showings probably isn't quite so impressive if he starts a decade later (and faces harder competition earlier in his career).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I you look across Bourque's postseason career, he's never carried a team to beat a team they weren't supposed to beat, or a team with the game's best talents.

I'd be interested in seeing how Lidstrom's teams and Bourque's team fared in playoff series divided as follows:

- Heavy favourite (16+ points ahead in standings)
- Favourites (6-15 points ahead in standings)
- Toss-up (teams are within 5 points of each other)
- Underdogs (6-15 points behind in standings)
- Heavy underdogs (16+ points behind in standings)

These definitions are arbitrary, but they can be modified if someone has a better idea. I'd be curious to see the results.

 

[PelagicJoe]

I agree. Good summary.
Lidstrom won more than Coffey, both with his teams and individually. Look at Detrotit's win percentage before Lidstrom entered the team, and after he left it, and compare it with when he was on the team. Like night and day.

I find Coffey underrated here on HOH. I think he was overall an excellent and dominating player during his prime. Great defensively too, in my opinion as good as Ray Bourque. (Now some might ridicule me for thinking that, but I have to write what I've seen. I also think Bourque's defensive was/is overrated.) When Coffey's legs, skating and body were at its best, he was simply great.
I rate Bourque's career above Coffey's, due to his better longevity, but it's not by a huge margin.

Stevens to me is 4th.

This sums it up for me as well. Plus I'm slightly guilty of being a homer, so I picked Lidstrom over Ray by a hair.

 

[Fugu]

Are you forgetting he carried the Bruins to the Finals almost singlehandedly? Look at those rosters? If I didn't name a bunch of them in my last post would you have known half of them? I seriously doubt you would have but I bet almost everybody could rattle off 5 teammates for Lidstrom for any given period.

I'm not saying that Bourque wasn't great. I'm saying the separation between him and Lidstrom isn't very great at all, and could swing either way depending on which [subjective, fluid] metric people want to use. It really shouldn't be a 2 to 1 swing when the main area of dominance is All Star selections, while discounting 7 Norrises.

Yes, I seamlessly never ending list of HHOFers that replaced each other. Hey, I am not begrudging what the Wings did, it's great that they had a wonderful owner instead of penny pinching Sinden and Jacobs.

Wow way to fast forward to after the Stanley Cup years and into the less than stellar days.

It wasn't as smooth as people make it out to be, and many years, the Wings had to get past the likes of Colorado (equal in talent), or the likes of Dallas, St Louis and Vancouver back when those teams were top contenders too. The team suffered some tragedies too, like the loss of Konstantinov, or Jiri Fischer much later. As time goes by, and we all consider them retrospectively, they're considered far greater than the time we were living through it. How often were they deemed as too old? (For a decade... nonstop, starting around 2000). Datsyuk was considered too small. I can hunt up threads where his agent was derided for saying Dats was worth Joe Thornton money after the lockout. A playoff choker. Zetterberg was a 7th round pick, Wings fan here were laughed at for suggesting these two guys were at all special. This was going on in 2007, the year the almost beat the Ducks, and the year before they won the Cup!


The mystique is only there if you're looking back in time. I doubt any one at that time would claim that Lidstrom had it easy with that group of forwards and fellow D. I mean, Andreas Lilja and Andre Markov were his partners at various times!

Interestingly enough, I was going to mention Marcel Dionne in this thread. I think Dionne was an amazing player, he gets bashed too much for his playoff history but that's my opinion.

I thought of Dionne because of the fluidity of the subjective metrics people use. Sometimes they pick playoff performance as key. Other times... not so much. Then it's All Star voting, which of course is very subjective and certainly not even the same format was used the entire time. Well, then it's the individual awards, but hey, those are easier to get if you're on a good team, but only if I say it was a good or bad team.

I guess my point is that these values seem to slide a bit too much. I think one would have to create their own template of the most important factors, and then apply them stringently to every player in an identical fashion. That allows each person to valuate things differently, but then have to apply that consistently to any of the players they choose to build up or tear down.