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

[Wrath]

Why even make the last statement if it has nothing to do with why Bourque is better than Lidstrom? It seems pointless if that is the case.

The whole thing just seems poorly worded anyway.

I dunno, just to reassert that Bourque is a good/great at defense.

Not that anybody (at least in this thread) was really doubting that.


I agree on the poor wording.

 

[Big Phil]

If the playoffs never existed, I take Bourque 100 times out of 100.

Without question, actually.

You might give Lidstrom the edge in the postseason. But Bourque has the edge pretty comfortably in the regular season. In the postseason it is very, very close. You have to take into account the amount of attention and lack of game breakers the Bruins had which Lidstrom had the luxury of having on his team. That counts in things like this. So you look individually. The Bruins lived or died with Bourque. They Red Wings didn't with Lidstrom.

 

[Gritty]

Lidstrom.

4 cups and 7 norris trophies!
(FWIW: I hated this poll!!! So damn hard to pick haha)

 

[Reds4Life]

Lidstrom has the best trophy case by far and made the most money as well.
So he is the clear winner here, IMHO.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom has the best trophy case by far and made the most money as well.
So he is the clear winner here, IMHO.

Lidstrom made more money than Gretzky too so I guess he's better than Gretzky and Subban will end up making more money than Lidstrom did so I guess Subban will then be the best Dman ever.

I just hope to god you're kidding about making more money being even remotely a factor.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Lidstrom made more money than Gretzky too so I guess he's better than Gretzky and Subban will end up making more money than Lidstrom did so I guess Subban will then be the best Dman ever.

I just hope to god you're kidding about making more money being even remotely a factor.

Depends on what you mean by best career.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Depends on what you mean by best career.

No it really doesn't. Not when talking purely about salary.

 

[Big Phil]

I just hope to god you're kidding about making more money being even remotely a factor.

I think he was kidding with that. I am assuming he is mocking the main board mentality with that kind of comment.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

No it really doesn't. Not when talking purely about salary.

Well, he did mention the trophy case, so it wasn't purely about salary.

So, yes, it really does.

Seriously, though, what are we defining career as? Best player over a career? Most success over a career? What?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well, he did mention the trophy case, so it wasn't purely about salary.

So, yes, it really does.

Seriously, though, what are we defining career as? Best player over a career? Most success over a career? What?

Gimme a break.
Money has no place in this discussion and even mentioning it was asinine IMHO.

The other part of his criteria was purely trophy counting.

(mod)

 

[Big Phil]

I think Lidstrom got a pretty good glimpse at what it's like to be Ray Bourque for 20 years during that down time for the Wings. Post 2002 when Yzerman and Fedorov weren't effective in the postseason anymore up until 2007 when Zetterberg and Datsyuk finally emerged. Lidstrom didn't carry those teams those years, and this was Boston for basically all of Bourque's career. Now, this isn't Lidstrom's fault of course, he did well with the luxuries he got which doesn't always translate into success even though it uaually did with him, but it does provide some context as to why Bourque never won a Cup until 2001. You can only do so much, and Bourque certainly did most of the time, and when he didn't carry them, they went nowhere. That's telling isn't it? They lived and died with what Ray Bourque did for them, and people watching the NHL at this time, knew this.

 

[Boxscore]

If "better career" is different than "better player", how can Lidstrom not win this?

I agree with this. I think Bourque was the better player, simply because I prefer his style of play. But Lidstrom had the best career of the four men. Look at those Cups and collection of Norris Trophies.

 

[Fugu]

I think Lidstrom got a pretty good glimpse at what it's like to be Ray Bourque for 20 years during that down time for the Wings. Post 2002 when Yzerman and Fedorov weren't effective in the postseason anymore up until 2007 when Zetterberg and Datsyuk finally emerged. Lidstrom didn't carry those teams those years, and this was Boston for basically all of Bourque's career. Now, this isn't Lidstrom's fault of course, he did well with the luxuries he got which doesn't always translate into success even though it uaually did with him, but it does provide some context as to why Bourque never won a Cup until 2001. You can only do so much, and Bourque certainly did most of the time, and when he didn't carry them, they went nowhere. That's telling isn't it? They lived and died with what Ray Bourque did for them, and people watching the NHL at this time, knew this.

He was the only reason those teams were respectable during that time. I think that's what the Lids supporters are trying to say, he was the one common theme to both eras, and everything in between. He won Norrises during that Cupless period. In other words, he was the biggest difference to the Wings, not the other way, that you could have inserted just any other fairly good defender and gotten the same 20+ year playoff run and 4 Cups. That actually took a Lidstrom to accomplish.

 

[Hobnobs]

I think Lidstrom got a pretty good glimpse at what it's like to be Ray Bourque for 20 years during that down time for the Wings. Post 2002 when Yzerman and Fedorov weren't effective in the postseason anymore up until 2007 when Zetterberg and Datsyuk finally emerged. Lidstrom didn't carry those teams those years, and this was Boston for basically all of Bourque's career. Now, this isn't Lidstrom's fault of course, he did well with the luxuries he got which doesn't always translate into success even though it uaually did with him, but it does provide some context as to why Bourque never won a Cup until 2001. You can only do so much, and Bourque certainly did most of the time, and when he didn't carry them, they went nowhere. That's telling isn't it? They lived and died with what Ray Bourque did for them, and people watching the NHL at this time, knew this.

Thats funny because he did. While doubling as a mentor for a young Fischer.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I think Lidstrom got a pretty good glimpse at what it's like to be Ray Bourque for 20 years during that down time for the Wings. Post 2002 when Yzerman and Fedorov weren't effective in the postseason anymore up until 2007 when Zetterberg and Datsyuk finally emerged. Lidstrom didn't carry those teams those years, and this was Boston for basically all of Bourque's career. Now, this isn't Lidstrom's fault of course, he did well with the luxuries he got which doesn't always translate into success even though it uaually did with him, but it does provide some context as to why Bourque never won a Cup until 2001. You can only do so much, and Bourque certainly did most of the time, and when he didn't carry them, they went nowhere. That's telling isn't it? They lived and died with what Ray Bourque did for them, and people watching the NHL at this time, knew this.

I don't think many people (if any people) fault Bourque for not winning a cup until he arrived in Denver.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think many people (if any people) fault Bourque for not winning a cup until he arrived in Denver.

I've seen the "7 Norrises + 4 Cups" argument several times in this thread. In a roundabout way, it is faulting Bourque for not winning in Boston.

 

[Boxscore]

I've seen the "7 Norrises + 4 Cups" argument several times in this thread. In a roundabout way, it is faulting Bourque for not winning in Boston.

It's not faulting Ray. It's just looking at the facts and the history book and the names on Trophies. If you were to ask any young, emerging defenseman if they would rather retire with:

A. Being the leading scorer among defensemen in NHL history, with a 5 Norrises and a Cup at the end of their career

or

B. Finishing up as one of the best scoring defensemen (not the best) but winning 4 Cups and 7 Norris Trophies

Which do you think they would choose? Of course some of these accomplishments are aided by circumstance and luck, but Lidstrom's "career" in terms of accomplishments is better than Bourque's.

 

[Big Phil]

I don't think many people (if any people) fault Bourque for not winning a cup until he arrived in Denver.

400+ posts on this topic suggest there are some who do think this way. I've personally debated with them on this exact thread about that issue.

He was the only reason those teams were respectable during that time. I think that's what the Lids supporters are trying to say, he was the one common theme to both eras, and everything in between. He won Norrises during that Cupless period. In other words, he was the biggest difference to the Wings, not the other way, that you could have inserted just any other fairly good defender and gotten the same 20+ year playoff run and 4 Cups. That actually took a Lidstrom to accomplish.

Those teams were still pretty good in the span of 2002-'07. There was a bit of a gap from what Detroit was used to, but they were still good teams. Detroit led the NHL in points during this period as well. I am just saying, that version of the Wings from 2002-2007 after the Cup win in 2002 is a lot like the teams Bourque had in Boston. And we see that Lidstrom didn't have a lot of playoff success without Fedorov and Yzerman scoring goals, or Datsyuk and Zetterberg did he? This is just a rebuttal for the ones who criticized Bourque's playoff portfolio at times. Bourque dealt with that for 20 years, not 5.

It's not faulting Ray. It's just looking at the facts and the history book and the names on Trophies. If you were to ask any young, emerging defenseman if they would rather retire with:

A. Being the leading scorer among defensemen in NHL history, with a 5 Norrises and a Cup at the end of their career

or

B. Finishing up as one of the best scoring defensemen (not the best) but winning 4 Cups and 7 Norris Trophies

Which do you think they would choose? Of course some of these accomplishments are aided by circumstance and luck, but Lidstrom's "career" in terms of accomplishments is better than Bourque's.

I am pretty sure most defensemen - including Bourque - want more Cups. That being said, from an individual standpoint Bourque was the better defenseman. Just isolating the two of them, it's Bourque. Lidstrom's teams had better success and no one doubts that, but if we are talking from a strict individual performance it's Bourque. Lidstrom has the Cups on him, that's it. While that is commendable and something every player seeks, it doesn't always translate into the better player, or better career. Too many times people Cup count with a Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate and leave it at that.

 

[Boxscore]

I am pretty sure most defensemen - including Bourque - want more Cups. That being said, from an individual standpoint Bourque was the better defenseman. Just isolating the two of them, it's Bourque. Lidstrom's teams had better success and no one doubts that, but if we are talking from a strict individual performance it's Bourque. Lidstrom has the Cups on him, that's it. While that is commendable and something every player seeks, it doesn't always translate into the better player, or better career. Too many times people Cup count with a Lidstrom vs. Bourque debate and leave it at that.

I also think Ray was the better player. I liked his style better and I would choose him over Lidstrom if I were starting an all-time team. But Lidstrom does have the Cups and 2 more Norris trophies. On paper, his career body of work is more impressive... and that's what I believe we're talking about here (and what I'm grading on).

 

[Rhiessan71]

It's not faulting Ray. It's just looking at the facts and the history book and the names on Trophies. If you were to ask any young, emerging defenseman if they would rather retire with:

A. Being the leading scorer among defensemen in NHL history, with a 5 Norrises and a Cup at the end of their career

or

B. Finishing up as one of the best scoring defensemen (not the best) but winning 4 Cups and 7 Norris Trophies

Which do you think they would choose? Of course some of these accomplishments are aided by circumstance and luck, but Lidstrom's "career" in terms of accomplishments is better than Bourque's.

Ummm...how about these choices...

A. Playing 22 seasons, 19 of them as a first or second team all-star. Being the leading scorer among defensemen in NHL history in points and 4th in points per game, with 5 Norrises, a Calder, pretty much winning 1 Hart and finishing as the runner-up for another and a Cup at the end of their career.

or

B. Playing 20 seasons, 12 as a first or second team all-star Finishing up as 6th in points and 16th in points per game but winning 4 Cups, 1 Conn Smythe and 7 Norris Trophies


So for team accomplishments, Lidstrom did better but he also played on much better teams.
Individual accomplishments...Bourque and it's really not close for me.
All-time leading scoring among Dmen (this alone is huge)
More first team all-star nods than Lidstrom has total all-star nods
I hold Bourque's 5 Norris in higher regard than Lidstrom's 7
Bourque's won his Calder 2 years younger than Lidstrom's 2nd place Calder finish
Only lost out on winning the Hart because a bunch of pro-Messier, Edmonton voters purposefully left Bourque's name off their ballots resulting in a tie in first place votes, 29 each, Bourque with 2 more second place votes 26-24 and Messier with 10 3rd place votes to Bourque's 2. Bourque's name was left off of 6 ballots

 

[Fugu]

400+ posts on this topic suggest there are some who do think this way. I've personally debated with them on this exact thread about that issue.



Those teams were still pretty good in the span of 2002-'07. There was a bit of a gap from what Detroit was used to, but they were still good teams. Detroit led the NHL in points during this period as well. I am just saying, that version of the Wings from 2002-2007 after the Cup win in 2002 is a lot like the teams Bourque had in Boston. And we see that Lidstrom didn't have a lot of playoff success without Fedorov and Yzerman scoring goals, or Datsyuk and Zetterberg did he? This is just a rebuttal for the ones who criticized Bourque's playoff portfolio at times. Bourque dealt with that for 20 years, not 5.

My exception with all of this is that Lidstrom is being downgraded for having actually had some of those favorable circumstances, which if we're truly honest, any All-Time great list will include players whose teams did remarkably well. There is just really no method that allows us to correct individual contributions completely in what's essentially a team sport, that's also governed quite a bit by randomness.

We KNOW what he achieved. We cannot say with any certainty that if you plug X, Y or Z into the same situation, that you'd get the same results. It's just not possible. I don't like to see a lifetime of achievement that's beyond remarkable so blithely dismissed because the bigger proponents for the guy without the team hardware want to focus on a couple individual metrics and give those more weight than should be reasonable given the team sport nature of it, again.

I also will point out that Boxscore makes some very good points, but at least he's admitting that he prefers one factor, which some of us say wasn't really needed by Lidstrom given his results (and these should speak for themselves)-- physicality. I'm not going to be convinced that Lids would have scored more, or prevented more scoring, or achieved more Cups or Norrises if only he'd been a more physical defenseman.

 

[BraveCanadian]

My exception with all of this is that Lidstrom is being downgraded for having actually had some of those favorable circumstances, which if we're truly honest, any All-Time great list will include players whose teams did remarkably well. There is just really no method that allows us to correct individual contributions completely in what's essentially a team sport, that's also governed quite a bit by randomness.

We KNOW what he achieved. We cannot say with any certainty that if you plug X, Y or Z into the same situation, that you'd get the same results. It's just not possible. I don't like to see a lifetime of achievement that's beyond remarkable so blithely dismissed because the bigger proponents for the guy without the team hardware want to focus on a couple individual metrics and give those more weight than should be reasonable given the team sport nature of it, again.

I also will point out that Boxscore makes some very good points, but at least he's admitting that he prefers one factor, which some of us say wasn't really needed by Lidstrom given his results (and these should speak for themselves)-- physicality. I'm not going to be convinced that Lids would have scored more, or prevented more scoring, or achieved more Cups or Norrises if only he'd been a more physical defenseman.

Interesting to see Phil arguing for Bourque considering how much he puts on winning. Usually Phil would say that Bourque "just didn't have it".

 

[Rhiessan71]

Interesting to see Phil arguing for Bourque considering how much he puts on winning. Usually Phil would say that Bourque "just didn't have it".

I don't think that characterization of Phil's previous posts is accurate at all.
Being put in a position to win and not doing so has been something Phil would jump on. Not winning while not being in a position to do so anyway is different.
For example, one can no more blame Bourque for not winning a Cup in Boston than one can blame Yzerman for not winning one in Detroit in the 80's.

 

[Big Phil]

Interesting to see Phil arguing for Bourque considering how much he puts on winning. Usually Phil would say that Bourque "just didn't have it".

I also think Ray was the better player. I liked his style better and I would choose him over Lidstrom if I were starting an all-time team. But Lidstrom does have the Cups and 2 more Norris trophies. On paper, his career body of work is more impressive... and that's what I believe we're talking about here (and what I'm grading on).

That's easy, Bourque was better for longer and at a much higher peak. You just might be able to name 5 seasons Bourque had that were better than Lidstrom's best. That has to count for something doesn't it? And last time I checked, Bourque did win didn't he? 2001 ring a bell? So it isn't fair to say he isn't a winner. Even before that, being the bread and butter on two Cup finalists is pretty impressive too. Considering those teams lost to the Oilers both times. I don't think a lot of players would "have it" against the Oilers either.

There is a big emphasis on winning. But there is also a big emphasis on performance and how you contributed. Kevin Lowe won 6 Cups. Was he a better playoff performer than Bourque? Not a chance. Would we consider Chris Pronger to have been a good playoff performer? Yes. But if you asked people that 10 years ago you'd have gotten some eyebrows raised. Up until 2004 Pronger was thought to be a choker in the postseason. The second half of his career that changed. A defenseman can't score 180 points in the postseason without being a major contributor to the team's success. Phil Housley never led his teams anywhere. Bourque, even before Colorado, did. Phil Housley's team went to the Cup final while he had little to do with it. Anytime Bourque's teams went deep, he was a key factor in making that happen. That's the difference.

You have to ask yourself, is there a year the Bruins should have won the Cup? The deepest runs Bourque's teams made were losses to the:

1983 Isles
1988 Oilers
1990 Oilers
1991 Pens
1992 Pens
2000 Stars (beat the Red Wings that year by the way)
2001 Won the Cup

So did Bourque not do his part? I think he did.

 

[quoipourquoi]

2000 Stars (beat the Red Wings that year by the way)

In fairness to Lidstrom, Bourque missed half of that series (and the beginning of the Dallas series), so that 12-point upset of Detroit wasn't much of a feather in Bourque's cap.