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

[quoipourquoi]

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.

16+ Favorite
Lidstrom: 18-5
Bourque: 8-2
6-15 Favorite
Lidstrom: 8-5
Bourque: 7-6
5-5
Lidstrom: 2-6
Bourque: 4-7
6-15 Underdog
Lidstrom: 3-1
Bourque: 2-3
16+ Underdog
Lidstrom: 0-0
Bourque: 0-1

 

[Wrath]

16+ Favorite
Lidstrom: 18-5
Bourque: 8-2
6-15 Favorite
Lidstrom: 8-5
Bourque: 7-6
5-5
Lidstrom: 2-6
Bourque: 4-7
6-15 Underdog
Lidstrom: 3-1
Bourque: 2-3
16+ Underdog
Lidstrom: 0-0
Bourque: 0-1

These look pretty similar, Bourque doing better in the within 5 range and Lidstrom doing better from the slight underdog (6-15 below). Big underdog can't be compared because Lidstrom never was in such a situation and Bourque has a sample size of 1.

I do think that the distribution of # of times each player was grouped in each category is interesting (and relatively not surprising):

Large Favorite:
Bourque 10 (80% wpct)
Lidstrom 23 (78%)

Slight Favorite:
Bourque 13 (54%)
Lidstrom 13 (62%)

Even:
Bourque 11 (36%)
Lidstrom 8 (25%)

Slight Underdog:
Bourque 5 (40%)
Lidstrom 4 (75%)

Large Underdog:
Bourque 1 (0%)
Lidstrom 0 (N/A)

The most telling statistic is of course the number of times that Lidstrom was playing in a series as a large favorite, a whopping 23 times to Bourque's 10 times.

 

[Big Phil]

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?

Not that he was a one-man show, but that he was the most important piece on those teams. Middleton was a fine player. Not an Yzerman or Fedorov though, but a fine player. Park, McNab and O'Reilly weren't really stars on Bourque's Bruins anymore. They were declining. Oates for a few years was good and Moog was a good goalie. It still pales in comparison to those Red Wings teams is what I am saying. And I think we can't overstate that enough. And it's not to discredit Lidstrom because he was just part of a nice big puzzle. Not his fault, he excelled and good for him. But with Bourque there was no break. The Bruins lacked the depth of the Red Wings. They lacked the star power, the clutch performers. Everyone knew that if you beat Bourque you beat the Bruins. Despite all of that he's still one of the better playoff performers in NHL history, it doesn't mean he doesn't have a lull in there in the postseason. How couldn't he? It'll happen, but generally he was still producing, he wasn't doing what Marcel Dionne did, not take his team anywhere.

Could he have played better in 1987 in the playoffs after a Norris winning Hart-caliber season? Yes. But so could have Lidstrom in some select years even ones where he won the Norris too. So we're cherrypicking.

But it is still amazing considering the things that Bourque did with the lesser quality of players in comparison to what others had. Honestly, would the Bruins normally be 1st overall in 1990 with that line up? Answer honestly, because I know my answer.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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.

How about showing who Bourque's Bruins were beat by instead.
'80 Cup Champion Isles
'81 Cup Finalist Stars
'83 Cup Champion Isles
'86 Cup Champion Habs
'88 Cup Champion Oilers in the Finals
'89 Cup finalist Habs
'90 Cup Champion Oilers in Finals
'91 Cup Champion Pens
'92 Cup Champion Pens
'95 Cup Champion Devils
'97 Cup Finalist Panthers
'98 Cup Finalist Capitals
'99 Cup Finalist Sabres

8 times (7 of those were vs the Isles, Oilers, Devils and Pens) in 19 seasons the Bruins were eliminated by the eventual Cup Champs and 13 times out of 19 they were eliminated by either the Cup Champs or the Cup finalists.

Anyone want to do Lidstrom's Wings by comparison? I will later if no one else does.


(I'll respond to the earlier post later. Tired atm and need sleep first)

 

[Steve Kournianos]

How about showing who Bourque's Bruins were beat by instead.
'80 Cup Champion Isles
'81 Cup Finalist Stars
'83 Cup Champion Isles
'86 Cup Champion Habs
'88 Cup Champion Oilers in the Finals
'89 Cup finalist Habs
'90 Cup Champion Oilers in Finals
'91 Cup Champion Pens
'92 Cup Champion Pens
'95 Cup Champion Devils
'97 Cup Finalist Panthers
'98 Cup Finalist Capitals
'99 Cup Finalist Sabres

8 times (7 of those were vs the Isles, Oilers, Devils and Pens) in 19 seasons the Bruins were eliminated by the eventual Cup Champs and 13 times out of 19 they were eliminated by either the Cup Champs or the Cup finalists.

Anyone want to do Lidstrom's Wings by comparison? I will later if no one else does.


(I'll respond to the earlier post later. Tired atm and need sleep first)

Again, losing to a Cup Finalist is a fan tool for consolation.

You're just telling me Bourque and the Bruins made life easier for those teams to get to the finals.

And it would be noteworthy if Bourque played well in all those series he lost. I can tell you he didnt.

That would be the ultimate testament to a guys postseason worth - how well they do in defeat or when the odds are stacked.

I'll do a little project today: Bourque's numbers in series losses, and his teammates too. I'll do Lidstrom as well. May take a while

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How about showing who Bourque's Bruins were beat by instead.
'80 Cup Champion Isles
'81 Cup Finalist Stars
'83 Cup Champion Isles
'86 Cup Champion Habs
'88 Cup Champion Oilers in the Finals
'89 Cup finalist Habs
'90 Cup Champion Oilers in Finals
'91 Cup Champion Pens
'92 Cup Champion Pens
'95 Cup Champion Devils
'97 Cup Finalist Panthers
'98 Cup Finalist Capitals
'99 Cup Finalist Sabres

8 times (7 of those were vs the Isles, Oilers, Devils and Pens) in 19 seasons the Bruins were eliminated by the eventual Cup Champs and 13 times out of 19 they were eliminated by either the Cup Champs or the Cup finalists.

Anyone want to do Lidstrom's Wings by comparison? I will later if no one else does.


(I'll respond to the earlier post later. Tired atm and need sleep first)

'92 Cup finalist Blackhawks
'95 Cup Champion Devils in the Finals
'96 Cup Champion Avalanche
'04 Cup finalist Flames
'06 Cup finalist Oilers
'07 Cup Champion Ducks in
'09 Cup Champion Penguins in the Finals

Detroit also lost to Colorado in '99 and '00 before reaching the finals.

That's a pretty good run from 95 to 00 - winning the Cup or losing to NJ or Colorado every season.

 

[The Panther]

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.

I agree. And I don't think anyone supporting Bourque over Lidstrom has said otherwise.

As time goes by, and we all consider them retrospectively, they're considered far greater than the time we were living through it... 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 think that's just not true. If you go back and watch the documentary about the Red Wings in 2001-02, at least two of the Wings' own players say that when they got to training camp, everyone was coming up to them and telling them, "You're going to win the Cup this year": "You guys are definitely going to win!" This was because, in addition to already being a contender, they'd just signed Hasek, Hull, and Robitaille that off-season.

I guarantee you that Bourque in Boston never experienced anyone saying that to him with confidence.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

These look pretty similar, Bourque doing better in the within 5 range and Lidstrom doing better from the slight underdog (6-15 below). Big underdog can't be compared because Lidstrom never was in such a situation and Bourque has a sample size of 1.

I do think that the distribution of # of times each player was grouped in each category is interesting (and relatively not surprising):

Large Favorite:
Bourque 10 (80% wpct)
Lidstrom 23 (78%)

Slight Favorite:
Bourque 13 (54%)
Lidstrom 13 (62%)

Even:
Bourque 11 (36%)
Lidstrom 8 (25%)

Slight Underdog:
Bourque 5 (40%)
Lidstrom 4 (75%)

Large Underdog:
Bourque 1 (0%)
Lidstrom 0 (N/A)

The most telling statistic is of course the number of times that Lidstrom was playing in a series as a large favorite, a whopping 23 times to Bourque's 10 times.

Yup. 13 series' (so between 52 and 91 possible games) advantage as an overwhelming favourite. No one should be surprised either, since we're comparing the Wings of the 90s/00s to the Bruins of the 80s/90s.

 

[overg]

Yup. 13 series' (so between 52 and 91 possible games) advantage as an overwhelming favourite. No one should be surprised either, since we're comparing the Wings of the 90s/00s to the Bruins of the 80s/90s.

While all of the numbers being put forth are pretty interesting, to me this is just one of those "smell test" issues. Looking at the Bourque's Bruin teams of the 80's and 90's, it just doesn't "smell wrong" that they didn't win any Cups. They probably had enough talent to do it, but I wouldn't say they underachieved in not doing so. Given that, and the fact that Bourque put up some pretty damn good numbers overall, and its hard to say either they or he underachieved. Those were some pretty good teams, but a lot of pretty good teams have not won Cups.

By the same token, looking at Lidstrom's Wings in the 90's and 00's, and four Cups seems about right. They may have had the talent to win a few more, but they could have also had the bad luck to win a couple less. So I don't think you can give Lidstrom credit for overachieving.

Which is a really long winded way of saying that both defenseman did pretty much what they could be expected to do. Swap their situations, and I wouldn't expect a big change in the results either team achieved.

 

[Big Phil]

'92 Cup finalist Blackhawks
'95 Cup Champion Devils in the Finals
'96 Cup Champion Avalanche
'04 Cup finalist Flames
'06 Cup finalist Oilers
'07 Cup Champion Ducks in
'09 Cup Champion Penguins in the Finals

Detroit also lost to Colorado in '99 and '00 before reaching the finals.

That's a pretty good run from 95 to 00 - winning the Cup or losing to NJ or Colorado every season.

So the point is, both Lidstrom and Bourque lost to the eventual Cup champions or Cup finalists quite often? Nothing new here. I've been saying that for a while about Bourque. No shame is not being able to beat the 1991 and 1992 Pens. Or losing to the Oilers those years, or Islanders. And I think we tend to forget that period where Montreal couldn't buy a series victory against Boston.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

1995 First Round

Lemaire's line combinations seemed to cause confusion for Boston. There were numerous times in key situations that Lemaire used Claude Lemieux with Bobby Holik as his center and Randy McKay as the right wing.

Lemieux also stepped on the ice as quickly as possible every time Cam Neely did, again shadowing and frustrating the Bruins' star when the teams were at even strength. When the Bruins were on the power play, Neal Broten, Tom Chorske, Richer and John MacLean were usually the first four forwards.

"We played often with two lines," Lemaire said of his strategy, which was primarily aimed at neutralizing Neely and Adam Oates. "I wanted to get certain players involved in the game more."

Brian Sutter, the coach of the Bruins, reconstructed his top line for this game, putting Brian Smolinski in place of Mats Naslund with Neely and Oates. It was a move that broke up Boston's second line, which the Bruins were counting on a great deal before the series.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/09/sports/1995-nhl-playoffs-bruins-goal-against-the-devils-a-goal.html

1990 SCF

Tikkanen is merely doing what he does best, what he did to Wayne Gretzky in the second-round series against the Kings and Denis Savard in the third round against the Chicago Blackhawks. Tikkanen is assigned to the key man in the opposing offense and told to disrupt him and, thus, the opposing team's game plan.

In the case of the Bruins, that would be Janney, the center who often fed Cam Neely on his way to a team-high 55 goals.

With Tikkanen on the job Tuesday, it was left to defenseman Ray Bourque to score both Boston goals.

"I've never had anything like that," Janney said. "It just seemed wherever I turned, (Tikkanen) was just right in my face the whole game. It was hard to breathe, he was so close to me. I didn't really touch the puck all night."

At one point, in desperation, Janney faked as if he were coming off.

"I wanted to see if it would work," he said. "I went toward the bench and screamed, 'Change! Change!' He looked to his bench. Then, I cut away and was open for a second, but nobody saw me.

"The next time, he waited until I crossed the boards. He said, 'That's not going to work this time, son.' "

That's actually a funny story.

Now, you can say that Milbury/Sutter wanted Bourque on the ice with Janney-Neely or Oates-Neely, but here we have hard proof that Bourque was most certainly not a man on an island, or being the focus of opposing coaches, at least in these two examples.

Either coches felt it's impossible to neutralize Bourque so they went after his teammates, or they had secondary and tertiary tactics to check him.

Either way, whatever tactics employe by opposing coaches, it's pretty obvious that as the competition stiffened, Bourque had trouble ether generating offense and/or shutting down top lines.

In the aforementioned game, the game was scoreless in the 1st period and the Bruins were on a PP. Bourque's pass was picked off by Richer and gave the Devils a 1-0 lead.

 

[Rhiessan71]

1995 First Round



http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/09/sports/1995-nhl-playoffs-bruins-goal-against-the-devils-a-goal.html

1990 SCF


That's actually a funny story.

Now, you can say that Milbury/Sutter wanted Bourque on the ice with Janney-Neely or Oates-Neely, but here we have hard proof that Bourque was most certainly not a man on an island, or being the focus of opposing coaches, at least in these two examples.

Either coches felt it's impossible to neutralize Bourque so they went after his teammates, or they had secondary and tertiary tactics to check him.

Either way, whatever tactics employe by opposing coaches, it's pretty obvious that as the competition stiffened, Bourque had trouble ether generating offense and/or shutting down top lines.

In the aforementioned game, the game was scoreless in the 1st period and the Bruins were on a PP. Bourque's pass was picked off by Richer and gave the Devils a 1-0 lead.

So what's the point here?
I mean all you're doing is proving our point for us. That all the best teams had to do vs Boston was shut down 1 or 2 key players and it was game over.
That certainly wasn't even close to the case with Detroit now was it?
What's worse? Losing to all those Cup champs and Cup finalists as the underdog or losing to all those Cup champs and finalists as the favourite?
That's a rhetorical question btw

Also, I find it absolutely ridiculous that words like ineffective and poor playoff performer are being used for Bourque.
The 13th overall all-time player and 3rd overall all-time PO scorer among Dmen only 3 back of Lidstrom despite playing 50 less games.
And he is the ONLY player other than Gilmour and by far the only Dman in that top 13 that didn't play for the Isles, Oilers, Pens, Wings or Avs.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[Steve Kournianos]

So what's the point here?
I mean all you're doing is proving our point for us. That all the best teams had to do vs Boston was shut down 1 or 2 key players and it was game over.
That certainly wasn't even close to the case with Detroit now was it?
What's worse? Losing to all those Cup champs and Cup finalists as the underdog or losing to all those Cup champs and finalists as the favourite?
That's a rhetorical question btw

Also, I find it absolutely ridiculous that words like ineffective and poor playoff performer are being used for Bourque.
The 13th overall all-time player and 3rd overall all-time PO scorer among Dmen only 3 back of Lidstrom despite playing 50 less games.
And he is the ONLY player other than Gilmour and by far the only Dman in that top 13 that didn't play for the Isles, Oilers, Pens, Wings or Avs.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

These are your quotes I have a problem with:

The only place that Lidstrom was on Bourque's level offensively was as a PP QB. At Even Strength it's not even close.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89234375&postcount=78

Then you say this:

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

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89360499&postcount=303

I think in terms of postseason, you need to reassess your statement.

So it's Bourque's fault that for the first 13 years of his career he was trying to win a Cup vs 3 different Dynasty teams in the Isles, Oiler's and Pens.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89234375&postcount=78

The Pens were not a dynasty. They won back-to-back Cups but those years were sandwiched between missing the playoffs and three straight early exits. Plus, Edmonton and the Isles combined to eliminate Boston four times in 18 of Bourque's Boston postseasons. In the same time frame, the Isles went 10 years without making it out of the 2nd round, while the Oilers lost in the 1st round in 1989 to the Kings.

That Lidstrom's grand defensive game wasn't helped by playing in a much more strict and locked down defensive time?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89234375&postcount=78

The Dead Puck Era (unofficially) lasted from 1996-97 to 2004. Lidstrom won four Norris trophies after the Dead Puck Era.

The rules did not favor Lidstrom after 2005. The red line was eliminated, goalies were limited on playing the puck, water-ski obstruction or hooking of any kind was abolished and (mostly) d-men were now penalized for no change on icings, or getting two minutes for delay of game.

These rules were put in place to make Lidstrom's job harder.

And last I checked, Lidstrom was not facing a prime Gretzky or a prime Mario for his Cups heh.

No, but he did face (and beat) a prime Lindros, a prime Sakic-Forsberg, a prime Chelios-Roenick, Hull-Gretzky, a prime Malkin-Crosby -- and beat them while checking them

While Wayne and Mario are 1 and 1a in terms of the greatest forwards of all time, it's not like Lidstrom was facing the Coyotes or the Caps in every big series. The above players were Hart winners, Conn Smythe winners, AS-types.

I am NOT comparing Gretzky and Mario or the Dynasty Isles to what Lidstrom faced. Bourque had a bigger challenge, but he also suffered statistically against worse or equal teams. For every playoff loss to a dynasty you have series losses to average, above average and some excellent single-season playoff teams.

As I stated in post 296, you clearly see that while Bourque struggled to maintain or exceed his regular reason production both offensively and defensively, his top teammates from several eras (minus Oates and Juneau) while playing with Bourque DID NOT suffer as much of a dip, or in some cases, no dip or a massive spike in production.

Almost all of those teams were average to above average at best.
They became good to very good teams because of Bourque, make no mistake about that.

Not in the postseason. In the postseason with a healthy Bourque the overall body of work is mediocre, with two significant periods (1980-1987 and 1993-1999 being poor). 1983 was obviously a team fluke, while 1988-1991 they were a legitimate powerhouse.

After the 1987 season, the Bruins hired a sports psychiatrist to help the Bruins get over the Habs hump. Bourque attended the sessions. Sinden and O'Reilly also felt the team was not tough or skilled enough to beat the Habs. They went out and drafted Wesley, got Lemelin and were lucky to have a healthy Thelven and Kluzak. Their intent was to give Bourque a better supporting cast.

To say that Boston's offense had more to with Oates when he was there is complete crap

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89257099&postcount=117

The guy who coached against him, and Oates' predecessor seem to disagree with you. You cant say Bourque was the focal point and drew shadow coverage when the Bruins No. 1 scoring line was clearly more important to opposing coaches. At least in those two series. I can find more examples if youd like.

Now, if you want to twist that into Bourque being so superhuman nobody targeted him, be my guest. But it will contradict what you stated about Bourque's dip in postseason numbers were due to him being shadowed and checked.

Ineffective how? Because he didn't produce as much offense (still more than Lidstrom though) but still played a sound defensive game?
Show me how Bourque was less effective and while you're at it, under the exact same metric, show me how Lidstrom was more effective.
Show me the GF/60 and GA/60 in the playoffs for both players to prove it!

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89258629&postcount=121

See post 216 and 219. Raw data. Do what you please with it, but you certainly haven't provided any posteason support numbers for Bourque outside of a cumulative PPG unadjusted.

Bolded...WHO, WHEN, WHERE??? By you in one of your grossly Russian biased lists? Ooookkk...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89259857&postcount=126

Didn't Gretzky say Fetisov was the best he eve played against? Weren't there like a few dozen quotes from articles in which Fetisov was regarded as the best in the world? From Western journalists no less.

On top of this you have Bourque facing the prospect of beating the Dynasty Isles and Oilers, the powerhouse '89 Flames, the god like Roy in '86 or the powerhouse Pens in '91 and '92 over the first 13 years of his career to get a Cup.
While at the same time, Lidstrom is not facing anything to close to that level of adversity, he is actually on one of those powerhouse teams for almost the entirety of his career.
At no time did Lidstrom ever have to face or even come close to what Bourque faced in Boston in the late 90's. The cheapness, the inept player management and just overall mess that franchise.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89291405&postcount=173

While I agree that Boston wasn't always a Cup Contender, while Detroit was the entirety of Lidstrom's career, what you are stating is pretty useless for several reasons:

1) Both Lidstrom and Bourque beat Roy in the postseason. You can argue that Roy's Colorado teams who beat or were beaten by Lidstrom were better than any of the Habs teams beaten or beaten by Bourque. In 1986 Roy was a rookie. In 1993 they could have beaten (or lost) to the Habs had they not choked against the underdog Sabres.

2) The 1989 Flames have nothing to do with Bourque, unless you are implying that Bourque entered the 1989 postseason with the mentality that all hope was lost if the Bruins ever played them.

3) Bourque admitted that in 1990, the Bruins were favored and he felt like they had a chance. I have to dig up the quote. I'm saying this because I'm assuming by using the word "adversity", that Bourque and the Bruins were facing both a mental and physical an uphill climb every postseason, which was not the case statistically in several seasons.

4) You're assuming that had Boston faced at last one of the NYI, Oilers and Pens every postseason, or made it to the CF or Finals every year between 1980 and 1992, they would have lost every year. It's the unknown, so it is not valid.

So seriously, what was the point you were trying to make exactly because the only point anyone else sees from that is teams actively keyed on Bourque because almost everything ran through him

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89300635&postcount=215

Bourque was not the sole target, if targeted at all. Neither was Lidstrom. The difference is that one guy saw his numbers decline and his team lose while the other saw his number decline less and saw his team lose less.

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

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89337329&postcount=279

You need to prove the underlined, especially post 2006. I don't disagree about Bourque's role and prominence as a Bruin, but he was not the lone option and the sole target. This comment tries to minimize Lidstrom's role on the Red Wings.

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.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=89360499&postcount=303

This I wrong/inaccurate. Unless you can provide proof that in 19 postseasons, Bourque was shadowed.

 

[Dark Shadows]

1995 First Round



http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/09/sports/1995-nhl-playoffs-bruins-goal-against-the-devils-a-goal.html

1990 SCF


That's actually a funny story.

Now, you can say that Milbury/Sutter wanted Bourque on the ice with Janney-Neely or Oates-Neely, but here we have hard proof that Bourque was most certainly not a man on an island, or being the focus of opposing coaches, at least in these two examples.

Either coches felt it's impossible to neutralize Bourque so they went after his teammates, or they had secondary and tertiary tactics to check him.

Either way, whatever tactics employe by opposing coaches, it's pretty obvious that as the competition stiffened, Bourque had trouble ether generating offense and/or shutting down top lines.

In the aforementioned game, the game was scoreless in the 1st period and the Bruins were on a PP. Bourque's pass was picked off by Richer and gave the Devils a 1-0 lead.

Everyone knew the story with Janney. But I will raise you actual commentary from the 90's finals where they discuss specifically how they intentionally dumped the puck in Bourque's corner, then forechecked hard, forcing him to pass to less able puck carriers(Which was everyone according to the announcers), then backchecking on him like he was a forward to prevent him from acting like an offensive defenseman.



That strategy would not work on Lidstrom whatsoever of course, because he was able to pass to so many actual puck moving threats on his own team who also backchecked like Selke winners and had far more depth in dangerous scoring two way forwards.

When it comes down to it, a lot of defensemen's points comes from simple puck movement. If you can neutralize the forwards he is passing to, you chop away at his point totals as well. Much easier to shadow Janney than Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, etc etc

 

[Rhiessan71]

Everyone knew the story with Janney. But I will raise you actual commentary from the 90's finals where they discuss specifically how they intentionally dumped the puck in Bourque's corner, then forechecked hard, forcing him to pass to less able puck carriers(Which was everyone according to the announcers), then backchecking on him like he was a forward to prevent him from acting like an offensive defenseman.



That strategy would not work on Lidstrom whatsoever of course, because he was able to pass to so many actual puck moving threats on his own team who also backchecked like Selke winners and had far more depth in dangerous scoring two way forwards.

When it comes down to it, a lot of defensemen's points comes from simple puck movement. If you can neutralize the forwards he is passing to, you chop away at his point totals as well. Much easier to shadow Janney than Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, etc etc

Never happened. Even though some of us saw it with our own two eyes year after year, we don't have the stats that prove this so it never happened

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Everyone knew the story with Janney. But I will raise you actual commentary from the 90's finals where they discuss specifically how they intentionally dumped the puck in Bourque's corner, then forechecked hard, forcing him to pass to less able puck carriers(Which was everyone according to the announcers), then backchecking on him like he was a forward to prevent him from acting like an offensive defenseman.

That strategy would not work on Lidstrom whatsoever of course, because he was able to pass to so many actual puck moving threats on his own team who also backchecked like Selke winners and had far more depth in dangerous scoring two way forwards.

When it comes down to it, a lot of defensemen's points comes from simple puck movement. If you can neutralize the forwards he is passing to, you chop away at his point totals as well. Much easier to shadow Janney than Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, etc etc

Lidstrom's teammates has nothing to do with Bourque personally struggling to move the puck AND play his man in the postseason the same way he did in the regular season.

It's a tactic...not a strategy. And it's a basic tenet of forechecking....NOT shadowing/targeting as you and others have proclaimed. If a goalie is a good puck handler...hard dump ins. If the dmen have trouble pushing the puck...slow dump ins.

Hockey 101. It was not a revolutionary tactic the Oilers had the monopoly on. The onus was on Bourque to change HIS tactics to beat the forecheck. That's what superstars do.

A strategy would be "neutralize Bourque"

A tactic would be "slow dump in and press him"

How is that different from what forechecking teams did during the regular season?

The Devils were a trapping team in 1994 and 1995. The opposing tactics changed series to series but Bourque's defensive numbers and offensive numbers still took hits.

And I'm not really focused as much on his points and offense as much as I am on his defense.



This is MY interpretation of a very important game in Bruins history...and it all centers on defense.

Bourque's last three shifts in the critical Game 5 were not stellar from a defensive standpoint. In a 0-0 game in a 2-2 series in the 3rd period at the Forum, Bourque tried to step up in the neutral zone for a stick check, but he overcommits, and Tom Kurvers blows right past him for a partial breakaway that is stopped.

The next play, with under 2 mins left in regulation and a faceoff deep in Montreal's zone, the Habs chip the puck out on a 3-on-2. Bourque stepped up to Tremblay at the blue line and missed, and Tremblay just slid it over to Bobby Smith for a 2-on-1 that Keans stopped. The very next shift, Bourque rushes up the ice and sets up a great chance but he pinches right to the slot and fans on the centering feed He is then caught up ice and the Habs have a 3-on-2 with about 50 seconds left. Tremblay makes a world-class fake to get Keans of out position then slides it over to Naslund who buries it. Series over. Have a nice summer.

Now Bourque did the right thing by covering his man at the side of the net (although the guy looked to be open for a second and was in the crease). But I just gave three examples of a guy who made three very risky gambles in the most critical game of his season, the last one which ended up in the back of the net.

In retrospect....he should have not charged the slot after dishing it off at the blue line. If he stays at the point, the Habs don't have numbers up the ice and he can choke the rush in the neutral zone.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Never happened. Even though some of us saw it with our own two eyes year after year, we don't have the stats that prove this so it never happened

I agree. It seems like year after year we saw the same thing -- Bourque struggling to play as well in the postseason as he did in the regular season.

Only I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[Big Phil]

I agree. It seems like year after year we saw the same thing -- Bourque struggling to play as well in the postseason as he did in the regular season.

Only I'm not being sarcastic.

Man, there are so many things that factor into this and you've ignored a ton of things people have thrown at you, but Bourque did more with less. The postseason is one of those times when a team that relies heavily on one player gets exposed more. The teams that are deeper tend to win. I wouldn't have called the Bruins a one-man team, but I wouldn't have called them offensively deep either. Bourque was the star. Since Bourque and Lidstrom were both great in the postseason you have to dig deeper. There are facts that have shown you how things just might have been a bit easier for Lidstrom to win than Bourque. When you are worrying about Fedorov, Yzerman and Shanahan are you keying on Lidstrom as much? And good for him for showing up because not everyone does even in that situation.

But this is more about Bourque. For a defenseman so great, how did he not win a Cup? I don't think anyone faults him for that, and you have to ask why. Is it because his supporting cast wasn't as good as the teams he was facing? Looks like it. So let's give the guy some credit for getting his teams into the postseason 21 out of 22 times in his career and carrying them as far as he did shall we?

 

[The Panther]

Instead of trying to run down Bourque, I'd like those arguing for Lidstrom's superiority to present the case of what exactly Lidstrom did -- you know, on the ice, not just a bunch of stats -- that Bourque didn't do as well.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree. It seems like year after year we saw the same thing -- Bourque struggling to play as well in the postseason as he did in the regular season.

Only I'm not being sarcastic.

Look, you are very good at manipulating and cherry picking data to back up your point while all but ignoring and attempting to downplay valid counter points.

But this complete crap you are trying to spout that the POs aren't completely different from the regular season is just assinine.

At some point all the stats and info you present (cherrypick) has to jive with the eye test and just good old fashioned common sense.

One of the oldest tactics in the book is to target the oppositions best/most important player and wear them down so their effectiveness is reduced the longer the series goes.
This is not something that done to anything close to the same level in the regular season. It doesn't provide much of an advantage in the single games played.
Bourque very, very unlike Lidstrom, was susceptible to these wear down tactics because he was so much more involved and counted upon (getting the puck out, defensively, offensively, handling the puck and generally controlling the play for the Bruins) to such a greater degree than Lidstrom was.
It was actually a disadvantage for anyone attempting to overload and isolate Lidstrom as Detroit had so many other dangerous players that would be left open if you tried.
That wasn't the case with Bourque, you could target him with little worry of being hurt by other players on the ice.

So seriously, gimme a break with this "things don't change in the POs" crap. Its not close to true and anyone with a lick of common sense with some hockey knowledge or experience knows it.

So no matter how many mirrors or how much smoke you bring about, in the end, Bourque was still better offensively overall and about even defensively with Lidstrom despite Bourque being much more vulnerable to isolation/wear down tactics.
Yes Bourque dropped off more than Lidstrom did from the regular season BUT Bourque was still above Lidstrom's actual level.

 

[overg]

Instead of trying to run down Bourque, I'd like those arguing for Lidstrom's superiority to present the case of what exactly Lidstrom did -- you know, on the ice, not just a bunch of stats -- that Bourque didn't do as well.

I'll give it my two cents, although please realize, I am taking your question as literally as possible. These are two things I think Lidstrom did better than Bourque. These are NOT actually arguments that Lidstrom was overall better than Bourque.

The first, easier, answer is that Lidstrom played positionally sounder defense. I don't expect that suggestion will generate too much controversy.

The second thing is kind of related, though is a little harder to put into words, and is probably open to a little more discussion. For lack of better words, I'll just say Lidstrom was better at running a puck possession system.

I am NOT saying Lidstrom was better at carrying the puck. In fact, I think that's perhaps the most visibly apparent edge Bourque had over Lidstrom. Instead what I mean is that Lidstrom's "safe" playstyle affected the way the entire team played and kept possession of the puck. Knowing Nik would be in the "right" place and would make the "right" play gave the other Wings the confidence to play the "puck possession" system they employed for over a decade. I think Lidstrom's game was more suited to that sort of system than Bourque's.

Which isn't to say that makes Lidstrom better than Bourque. Bourque's style was certainly more suited to the 80's. Swap both in for Coffey on the Oilers, and I bet Bourque blows Lindstrom out of the water. On the flip side, I bet Lidstrom has more success swapping into Stevens' Devils than Bourque would. They both had their (amongst the best ever) strengths. Running a "system" just happens to be one which I think favored Lidstrom.

And with that, I will never post on my tablet again. It insists on autocorrecting to "Lindstrom," and I cannot find a way to turn that off. Posting this was painful.

 

[Big Phil]

The first, easier, answer is that Lindstrom played positionally sounder defense. I don't expect that suggestion will generate too much controversy.

Lidstrom was a tad positionally better. Safer if you will.

The second thing is kind of related, though is a little harder to put into words, and is probably open to a little more discussion. For lack of better words, I'll just say Lidstrom was better at running a puck possession system.

Perhaps.

Which isn't to say that makes Lidstrom better than Bourque. Bourque's style was certainly more suited to the 80's. Swap both in for Coffey on the Oilers, and I bet Bourque blows Lindstrom out of the water. On the flip side, I bet Lidstrom has more success swapping into Stevens' Devils than Bourque would. They both had their (amongst the best ever) strengths. Running a "system" just happens to be one which I think favored Lidstrom.

I don't know. The 1980s or 1990s Bruins were not a firewagon hockey type of team. Look at the 1990 Bruins. 11th in goals for. 1st in goals against. This is a 21 team league. They were built around Bourque, but didn't have the offensive players to play that type of wide open game. The early 1990s Bruins were similar to the Devils in the 1990s/2000s in the way that their styles were similar. So I think Bourque is the same on a Stevens/NJ team.

 

[Fugu]

'92 Cup finalist Blackhawks
'95 Cup Champion Devils in the Finals
'96 Cup Champion Avalanche
'04 Cup finalist Flames
'06 Cup finalist Oilers
'07 Cup Champion Ducks in
'09 Cup Champion Penguins in the Finals

Detroit also lost to Colorado in '99 and '00 before reaching the finals.

That's a pretty good run from 95 to 00 - winning the Cup or losing to NJ or Colorado every season.

Pretty top caliber talent Lidstrom faced in the playoffs, during the losing as well as winning years.

I agree. And I don't think anyone supporting Bourque over Lidstrom has said otherwise.

I think that's just not true. If you go back and watch the documentary about the Red Wings in 2001-02, at least two of the Wings' own players say that when they got to training camp, everyone was coming up to them and telling them, "You're going to win the Cup this year": "You guys are definitely going to win!" This was because, in addition to already being a contender, they'd just signed Hasek, Hull, and Robitaille that off-season.

I guarantee you that Bourque in Boston never experienced anyone saying that to him with confidence.

The 2002 run? Yes. However, Robitaille was really a nonfactor. Larionov was about 4th line material at this point.

You go on to the next season, and Hasek, Robitaille, and Bowman are all gone. Hull is playing with basically a couple of rookies (Two Kids and an Old Goat). Yzerman is skating on one leg by this time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The 2002 run? Yes. However, Robitaille was really a nonfactor. Larionov was about 4th line material at this point.

You go on to the next season, and Hasek, Robitaille, and Bowman are all gone. Hull is playing with basically a couple of rookies (Two Kids and an Old Goat). Yzerman is skating on one leg by this time.

So what? Downplay it all you want to. It's still hands down and miles ahead of any team Bourque had in front of him in Boston!

You can downplay every Detroit team Lidstrom played on and prop up every Boston team Bourque played on and you will still be a mile apart at the end of the day heh.
Enough already even suggesting its close between then in teammates, support and opportunity.

 

[overg]

I don't know. The 1980s or 1990s Bruins were not a firewagon hockey type of team. Look at the 1990 Bruins. 11th in goals for. 1st in goals against. This is a 21 team league. They were built around Bourque, but didn't have the offensive players to play that type of wide open game. The early 1990s Bruins were similar to the Devils in the 1990s/2000s in the way that their styles were similar. So I think Bourque is the same on a Stevens/NJ team.

I'm not sure Bourque would have had the freedom to carry the puck up the ice and push the play on the Devils, and given those are things which I think he had a decisive edge over Lidstrom at doing, I think the situation would "less hamper" Lidstrom than Bourque.

These are of course very relative (not to mention subjective) calls though. We are talking about two guys who are rated top-5 in history by the HoH voting block. It's not like either one of them is ever going to be a bad, or even mediocre, option, no matter what situation you plunk them in.