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

[Rhiessan71]

I think you're misinterpreting what he means by "sit back". As I'm reading it, it's seems to me that he's indicating that Lidstrom had luxury of being able to play positional defense full-time without having to worry about driving the play or controlling the puck. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I'm I reading this correctly Rhiessan?

You got 'er.
That's exactly what I said.

 

[Fugu]

I think you're misinterpreting what he means by "sit back". As I'm reading it, it's seems to me that he's indicating that Lidstrom had luxury of being able to play positional defense full-time without having to worry about driving the play or controlling the puck. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I'm I reading this correctly Rhiessan?

Then you, sir, seriously need to study the Wings' puck possession and mobile defense of that era.

Lidstrom was a leading scorer, the man who was the quarterback on the ice, the engine that powered the Wings system. Yes, he also was an incredible defender.

Without having to worry about driving the play or playing the puck, in fact, takes away one of the greatest assets he brought to that team. That's WHY they were at that level so long, because Lidstrom was that guy.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Then you, sir, seriously need to study the Wings' puck possession and mobile defense of that era.

Lidstrom was a leading scorer, the man who was the quarterback on the ice, the engine that powered the Wings system. Yes, he also was an incredible defender.

Without having to worry about driving the play or playing the puck, in fact, takes away one of the greatest assets he brought to that team. That's WHY they were at that level so long, because Lidstrom was that guy.

I have my own ideas as to why they were at that level for so long but I'll let the rest of you carry on with your discussion In this case I believed there was a misreading of what was being said and thought some clarification was needed

 

[overg]

I certainly did misinterpret what Rhiessan was going for. My apologies. Although I'd say he is still massively underestimating Lidstrom's role on the Wings in stating this:

Look, at the end of the day, all Lidstrom was counted on to do was to sit back and defend at even strength, run the point on a stacked power play and kill penalties

That is about as fair as claiming "at the end of the day, all Bourque was counted on to do was score points for a non-contending team during the run and gun 80's." Rhiesson's statement is incredibly dismissive of what Lidstrom actually did, and how instrumental he was to the best team of his era.

 

[Fugu]

I have my own ideas as to why they were at that level for so long but I'll let the rest of you carry on with your discussion In this case I believed there was a misreading of what was being said and thought some clarification was needed

A bit long, but worth it:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/590/hockey-central-at-noon/colby-rasmus/


I liked the part where they laughed they'd send Babcock over to coach that kids team Nick committed to coaching if that was the only reason Lids couldn't come back for one more year.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Then you, sir, seriously need to study the Wings' puck possession and mobile defense of that era.

Lidstrom was a leading scorer, the man who was the quarterback on the ice, the engine that powered the Wings system. Yes, he also was an incredible defender.

Without having to worry about driving the play or playing the puck, in fact, takes away one of the greatest assets he brought to that team. That's WHY they were at that level so long, because Lidstrom was that guy.

Except the description that Lidstrom apparently "ran the show" doesn't match the actual even strength stats.

 

[JCraw1]

Playoff scoring for Wings' Cup wins...
96-97
1. S. Fedorov(F): 20 games, 8 goals, 12 assists, 20 points
2. B. Shanahan(F): 20 games, 9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points
3. V. Kozlov(F): 20 games, 8 goals, 5 assists, 13 points
3. S. Yzerman(F): 20 games, 7 goals, 6 assists, 13 points
5. M. Lapointe(F): 20 games, 4 goals, 8 assists, 12 points
5. I. Larionov(F): 20 games, 4 goals, 8 assists, 12 points
7. L. Murphy(D): 20 games, 2 goals, 9 assists, 11 points
8. N. Lidstrom(D): 20 games, 2 goals, 6 assists, 8 points

97-98
1. S. Yzerman(F): 22 games, 6 goals, 18 assists, 24 points
2. S. Fedorov(F): 22 games, 10 goals, 10 assists, 20 points
3. T. Holmstrom(F): 22 games 7 goals, 12 assists, 19 points
3. N. Lidstrom(D): 22 games, 6 goals, 13 assists, 19 points
5. M. Lapointe(F): 21 games, 9 goals, 6 assists, 15 points
6. L. Murphy(D): 22 games, 3 goals, 12 assists, 15 points

01-02
1. S. Yzerman(F): 23 games, 6 goals, 17 assists, 23 points
2. B. Shanahan(F): 23 games, 8 goals, 11 assists, 19 points
2. S. Fedorov(F): 23 games, 5 goals, 14 assists, 19 points
4. B. Hull(F): 23 games, 10 goals, 8 assists, 18 points
5. N. Lidstrom(D): 23 games, 5 goals, 11 assists, 16 points
6. C. Chelios(D): 23 games 1 goal, 13 assists, 14 points

07-08
1. H. Zetterberg(F): 22 games, 13 goals, 14 assists, 27 points
2. P. Datsyuk(F): 22 games, 10 goals, 13 assists, 23 points
3. J. Franzen(F): 16 games, 13 goals, 5 assists, 18 points
4. N. Kronwall(D): 22 games, 0 goals, 15 assists, 15 points
5. J. Hudler(F): 22 games, 5 goals, 9 assists, 14 points
5. B. Rafalski(D): 22 games, 4 goals, 10 assists, 14 points
7. M. Samuelsson(F): 22 games, 5 goals, 8 assists, 13 points
7. N. Lidstrom(D): 22 games, 3 goals, 10 assists, 13 points


Raymond Bourque's 4 longest runs with Boston
82-83
1. R. Middleton(F): 17 games, 11 goals, 22 assists, 33 points
2. B. Pederson(F): 17 games, 14 goals, 18 assists, 32 points
3. R. Bourque(D): 17 games, 8 goals, 15 assists, 23 points
4. M. Krushelnsky(F): 17 games, 8 goals, 6 assists, 14 points
5. B. Park(D): 16 games, 3 goals, 9 assists, 12 points

87-88
1. K. Linseman(F): 23 games, 11 goals, 14 assists, 25 points
2. R. Bourque(D): 23 games, 3 goals, 18 assists, 21 points
3. C. Neely(F): 23 games, 9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points
4. C. Janney(F): 23 games, 6 goals, 10 assists, 16 points
5. B. Joyce(F): 23 games, 8 goals, 6 assists, 14 points
5. B. Sweeney(F): 23 games, 6 goals, 8 assists, 14 points
5. G. Wesley(D): 23 games, 6 goals, 8 assists, 14 points

90-91
1. R. Bourque(D): 19 games, 7 goals, 18 assists, 25 points
2. C. Janney(F): 18 games, 4 goals, 18 assists, 22 points
3. C. Neely(F): 19 games, 16 goals, 4 assists, 20 points
4. V. Ruzicka(F): 17 games, 2 goals, 11 assists, 13 points
5. D. Christian(F): 19 games, 8 goals, 4 assists, 12 points
6. G. Wesley(D): 19 games, 2 goals, 9 assists, 11 points

89-90
1. C. Neely(F): 21 games, 12 goals, 16 assists, 28 points
2. C. Janney(F): 18 games, 3 goals, 19 assists, 22 points
3. R. Bourque(D): 17 games, 5 goals, 12 assists, 17 points
4. R. Burridge(F): 21 games, 4 goals, 11 assists, 15 points
5. D. Poulin(F): 18 games, 8 goals, 5 assists, 13 points
6. B. Propp(F): 20 games, 4 goals, 9 assists, 13 points
7. B. Carpenter(F): 21 games, 4 goals, 6 assists, 10 points
8. J. Carter(F): 21 games, 6 goals, 3 assists, 9 points
9. G. Wesley(D): 21 games, 2 goals, 6 assists, 8 points

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIDSTROM
1. 8th in points (2nd among dmen in points)
2. 3rd in points (1st among dmen in points)
3. 5th in points (1st among dmen in points)
4. 7th in points (2nd among dmen in points)

BOURQUE
1. 3rd in points (1st among dmen in points)
2. 2nd in points (1st among dmen in points)
3. 1st in points (1st among dmen in points)
4. 3rd in points (1st among dmen in points)

Yeah, certainly Lidstrom was the best offensive player for the Wings and the reason for their success...until a Yzerman, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Fedorov, Larionov, ect. thread pops up and then the Wings cast isn't that great and *insert player* is better than other player because they were clutch and won Cups and the difference is that *insert player* is a much better playoff performer. Until a which team was the best over the past 20 years thread pops up and the Wings' teams turn into powerhouse borderline dynasties with multiple hall of famers and crazy insane depth and talent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Playoff scoring for Wings' Cup wins...
96-97
1. S. Fedorov(F): 20 games, 8 goals, 12 assists, 20 points
2. B. Shanahan(F): 20 games, 9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points
3. V. Kozlov(F): 20 games, 8 goals, 5 assists, 13 points
3. S. Yzerman(F): 20 games, 7 goals, 6 assists, 13 points
5. M. Lapointe(F): 20 games, 4 goals, 8 assists, 12 points
5. I. Larionov(F): 20 games, 4 goals, 8 assists, 12 points
7. L. Murphy(D): 20 games, 2 goals, 9 assists, 11 points
8. N. Lidstrom(D): 20 games, 2 goals, 6 assists, 8 points

97-98
1. S. Yzerman(F): 22 games, 6 goals, 18 assists, 24 points
2. S. Fedorov(F): 22 games, 10 goals, 10 assists, 20 points
3. T. Holmstrom(F): 22 games 7 goals, 12 assists, 19 points
3. N. Lidstrom(D): 22 games, 6 goals, 13 assists, 19 points
5. M. Lapointe(F): 21 games, 9 goals, 6 assists, 15 points
6. L. Murphy(D): 22 games, 3 goals, 12 assists, 15 points

01-02
1. S. Yzerman(F): 23 games, 6 goals, 17 assists, 23 points
2. B. Shanahan(F): 23 games, 8 goals, 11 assists, 19 points
2. S. Fedorov(F): 23 games, 5 goals, 14 assists, 19 points
4. B. Hull(F): 23 games, 10 goals, 8 assists, 18 points
5. N. Lidstrom(D): 23 games, 5 goals, 11 assists, 16 points
6. C. Chelios(D): 23 games 1 goal, 13 assists, 14 points

07-08
1. H. Zetterberg(F): 22 games, 13 goals, 14 assists, 27 points
2. P. Datsyuk(F): 22 games, 10 goals, 13 assists, 23 points
3. J. Franzen(F): 16 games, 13 goals, 5 assists, 18 points
4. N. Kronwall(D): 22 games, 0 goals, 15 assists, 15 points
5. J. Hudler(F): 22 games, 5 goals, 9 assists, 14 points
5. B. Rafalski(D): 22 games, 4 goals, 10 assists, 14 points
7. M. Samuelsson(F): 22 games, 5 goals, 8 assists, 13 points
7. N. Lidstrom(D): 22 games, 3 goals, 10 assists, 13 points


Raymond Bourque's 4 longest runs with Boston
82-83
1. R. Middleton(F): 17 games, 11 goals, 22 assists, 33 points
2. B. Pederson(F): 17 games, 14 goals, 18 assists, 32 points
3. R. Bourque(D): 17 games, 8 goals, 15 assists, 23 points
4. M. Krushelnsky(F): 17 games, 8 goals, 6 assists, 14 points
5. B. Park(D): 16 games, 3 goals, 9 assists, 12 points

87-88
1. K. Linseman(F): 23 games, 11 goals, 14 assists, 25 points
2. R. Bourque(D): 23 games, 3 goals, 18 assists, 21 points
3. C. Neely(F): 23 games, 9 goals, 8 assists, 17 points
4. C. Janney(F): 23 games, 6 goals, 10 assists, 16 points
5. B. Joyce(F): 23 games, 8 goals, 6 assists, 14 points
5. B. Sweeney(F): 23 games, 6 goals, 8 assists, 14 points
5. G. Wesley(D): 23 games, 6 goals, 8 assists, 14 points

90-91
1. R. Bourque(D): 19 games, 7 goals, 18 assists, 25 points
2. C. Janney(F): 18 games, 4 goals, 18 assists, 22 points
3. C. Neely(F): 19 games, 16 goals, 4 assists, 20 points
4. V. Ruzicka(F): 17 games, 2 goals, 11 assists, 13 points
5. D. Christian(F): 19 games, 8 goals, 4 assists, 12 points
6. G. Wesley(D): 19 games, 2 goals, 9 assists, 11 points

89-90
1. C. Neely(F): 21 games, 12 goals, 16 assists, 28 points
2. C. Janney(F): 18 games, 3 goals, 19 assists, 22 points
3. R. Bourque(D): 17 games, 5 goals, 12 assists, 17 points
4. R. Burridge(F): 21 games, 4 goals, 11 assists, 15 points
5. D. Poulin(F): 18 games, 8 goals, 5 assists, 13 points
6. B. Propp(F): 20 games, 4 goals, 9 assists, 13 points
7. B. Carpenter(F): 21 games, 4 goals, 6 assists, 10 points
8. J. Carter(F): 21 games, 6 goals, 3 assists, 9 points
9. G. Wesley(D): 21 games, 2 goals, 6 assists, 8 points

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIDSTROM
1. 8th in points (2nd among dmen in points)
2. 3rd in points (1st among dmen in points)
3. 5th in points (1st among dmen in points)
4. 7th in points (2nd among dmen in points)

BOURQUE
1. 3rd in points (1st among dmen in points)
2. 2nd in points (1st among dmen in points)
3. 1st in points (1st among dmen in points)
4. 3rd in points (1st among dmen in points)

Yeah, certainly Lidstrom was the best offensive player for the Wings and the reason for their success...until a Yzerman, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Fedorov, Larionov, ect. thread pops up and then the Wings cast isn't that great and *insert player* is better than other player because they were clutch and won Cups and the difference is that *insert player* is a much better playoff performer. Until a which team was the best over the past 20 years thread pops up and the Wings' teams turn into powerhouse borderline dynasties with multiple hall of famers and crazy insane depth and talent.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Bourque couldn't win in Boston because his team was no good AND he was awesome because he scored relatively more on his poor teams than Lidstrom? (totally ignoring how the role of defensemen changed for the most part between the 80s and the late 90s-2000s mind you)

Isn't that just counting the same thing twice?

 

[Fugu]

Never mind that the data is from the highest scoring era, where the league had its highest lack of parity as well. This info was covered in the thread earlier, and adjusted.

You know, there was a time when no one knew about Datsyuk and Zetterberg, they were Rookies, and then took a few years to shed their playoff choker label. This is what I mean about people considering this as one static situation, at it's peak. We're talking about 2+ decades, with wholesale roster turnovers, and Rookies going to become great players.

Lidstrom was consistent throughout, and AGAIN, some of you would do well to understand the Wings system before you come back and claim that Lidstrom wasn't the engine for the offense (transition, puck mobility) and defense. He was elite at every single situation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Never mind that the data is from the highest scoring era, where the league had its highest lack of parity as well. This info was covered in the thread earlier, and adjusted.

You know, there was a time when no one knew about Datsyuk and Zetterberg, they were Rookies, and then took a few years to shed their playoff choker label. This is what I mean about people considering this as one static situation, at it's peak. We're talking about 2+ decades, with wholesale roster turnovers, and Rookies going to become great players.

Lidstrom was consistent throughout, and AGAIN, some of you would do well to understand the Wings system before you come back and claim that Lidstrom wasn't the engine for the offense (transition, puck mobility) and defense. He was elite at every single situation.

Bourque didn't play in the 70s - he played in the 80s and early 90s. The 80s had their dynasties, but overall parity was much higher than the 70s. Also, Bourque didn't play on one of the super-stacked teams, so I don't know how lack of parity would help him to the extent that it did exist.

And a high scoring era wouldn't have any effect on how Bourque placed vs his teammates.

I mean, it's obvious that Bourque had to do more, right? If Lidstrom was on Boston, he would have had to do more too. I think posters on both sides tend to make a lot of assumptions about how well the player they are arguing for would do if their situations were reversed.

 

[Fugu]

Bourque didn't play in the 70s - he played in the 80s and early 90s. The 80s had their dynasties, but overall parity was much higher than the 70s. Also, Bourque didn't play on one of the super-stacked teams, so I don't know how lack of parity would help him to the extent that it did exist.

And a high scoring era wouldn't have any effect on how Bourque placed vs his teammates.

I mean, it's obvious that Bourque had to do more, right? If Lidstrom was on Boston, he would have had to do more too. I think posters on both sides tend to make a lot of assumptions about how well the player they are arguing for would do if their situations were reversed.

Well, no, the 1980s had the highest level, or what are you attributing that higher scoring was due to going from the 1970s (and yes, I know, the league doubled, and then the WHA got incorporated)?

I'll try to hunt up some of the studies that looked at a few metrics, which showed that a few dominant teams in the 1980s feasted off the horrific disparity in talent in that decade.

Also, not arguing that Bourque had to do more, but that the poster ignored the work done by Hockey Outsider to make the scoring rates a little more apples to apples-- something you guys on HOH like to do.

 

[jkrx]

Bourque didn't play in the 70s - he played in the 80s and early 90s. The 80s had their dynasties, but overall parity was much higher than the 70s. Also, Bourque didn't play on one of the super-stacked teams, so I don't know how lack of parity would help him to the extent that it did exist.

And a high scoring era wouldn't have any effect on how Bourque placed vs his teammates.

I mean, it's obvious that Bourque had to do more, right? If Lidstrom was on Boston, he would have had to do more too. I think posters on both sides tend to make a lot of assumptions about how well the player they are arguing for would do if their situations were reversed.

One could argue that the 80s suffered as much disparity as the 70s.

 

[overg]

I mean, it's obvious that Bourque had to do more, right? If Lidstrom was on Boston, he would have had to do more too. I think posters on both sides tend to make a lot of assumptions about how well the player they are arguing for would do if their situations were reversed.

I don't think your logic holds. Presuming Bourque's teammates were weaker than Lidstrom's (a presumption I certainly believe), then it would only follow that he "did more" if Bourque's teams achieved the same amount as Lidstrom's. But that didn't happen.

Based upon the information we're currently looking at, any of the following could be true:

1. Bourque contributed more to the Bruins than Lidstrom to the Wings, but his teammates were so much weaker, his teams didn't equal the Wings' success.

2. Bourque contributed equal to the Bruins as Lidstrom to the Wings, but his teamates were weaker than the Wings so they didn't have as much success.

3. Bourque contributed less to the Bruins than Lidstrom to the Wings, which combined with his weaker teammates, led to less team success.

It's certainly indisputable that Bourque got points on a higher percentage of his team's goal totals, but that doesn't lead to the inescapable conclusion that he "did more."

To put it another way, "comparison to teammates" is no more a valid way of judging a player than "Cup counting." Both, in and of themselves, tell you nothing when attempting to directly compare two players from different teams playing in rather different playstyle-eras.

Or, to put it yet another way, if Bourque had played on the Oilers instead of the Bruins, and played the exact same way, would you say he "did less" because he scored on a lower percentage of his teams' goals but had more team success?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think your logic holds. Presuming Bourque's teammates were weaker than Lidstrom's (a presumption I certainly believe), then it would only follow that he "did more" if Bourque's teams achieved the same amount as Lidstrom's. But that didn't happen.

Based upon the information we're currently looking at, any of the following could be true:

1. Bourque contributed more to the Bruins than Lidstrom to the Wings, but his teammates were so much weaker, his teams didn't equal the Wings' success.

2. Bourque contributed equal to the Bruins as Lidstrom to the Wings, but his teamates were weaker than the Wings so they didn't have as much success.

3. Bourque contributed less to the Bruins than Lidstrom to the Wings, which combined with his weaker teammates, led to less team success.

It's certainly indisputable that Bourque got points on a higher percentage of his team's goal totals, but that doesn't lead to the inescapable conclusion that he "did more."

To put it another way, "comparison to teammates" is no more a valid way of judging a player than "Cup counting." Both, in and of themselves, tell you nothing when attempting to directly compare two players from different teams playing in rather different playstyle-eras.

Or, to put it yet another way, if Bourque had played on the Oilers instead of the Bruins, and played the exact same way, would you say he "did less" because he scored on a lower percentage of his teams' goals but had more team success?

I didn't say Bourque did more, I said he had to do more to get to the same results, and I can't believe anyone would actually disagree with that. Obviously, Lidstrom's team ended up getting better results.

Everything you say afterwards is basically agreeing with me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, no, the 1980s had the highest level, or what are you attributing that higher scoring was due to going from the 1970s (and yes, I know, the league doubled, and then the WHA got incorporated)?

I'll try to hunt up some of the studies that looked at a few metrics, which showed that a few dominant teams in the 1980s feasted off the horrific disparity in talent in that decade.

Also, not arguing that Bourque had to do more, but that the poster ignored the work done by Hockey Outsider to make the scoring rates a little more apples to apples-- something you guys on HOH like to do.

I really think those studies were based on the post-expansion period from the late 60s through the 1970s.

The late 60s-70s were when the strong teams had weak expansion sisters to beat up on. When the WHA folded, the total number of teams actually contracted. All the extreme goal differentials (both team and individual) were from the 1970s, not the 1980s.

(This is getting off-topic)

One could argue that the 80s suffered as much disparity as the 70s.

One can argue anything they want, but the statistical disparity between the haves and have-nots was much higher in the 70s.

 

[jkrx]

One can argue anything they want, but the statistical disparity between the haves and have-nots was much higher in the 70s.

You don't seem to remember how poor some of those teams really were. Red Wings, Rockies, Jets, Oilers, Canucks, Capitals, Whalers, Penguins, Kings and Nordiques were simply terrible teams. We can't forget your team, the mickey mouse operation.

 

[Fugu]

I really think those studies were based on the post-expansion period from the late 60s through the 1970s.

The late 60s-70s were when the strong teams had weak expansion sisters to beat up on. When the WHA folded, the total number of teams actually contracted. All the extreme goal differentials (both team and individual) were from the 1970s, not the 1980s.

(This is getting off-topic)

Now why would you tell me that they're based on another era when I specifically said the 80s were in consideration? You haven't even seen what I'm going to have dig up now... but I know what I read.

One can argue anything they want, but the statistical disparity between the haves and have-nots was much higher in the 70s.

I'd like to see what you're using to draw this conclusion.

 

[Fugu]

I don't think your logic holds. Presuming Bourque's teammates were weaker than Lidstrom's (a presumption I certainly believe), then it would only follow that he "did more" if Bourque's teams achieved the same amount as Lidstrom's. But that didn't happen.

Based upon the information we're currently looking at, any of the following could be true:

1. Bourque contributed more to the Bruins than Lidstrom to the Wings, but his teammates were so much weaker, his teams didn't equal the Wings' success.

2. Bourque contributed equal to the Bruins as Lidstrom to the Wings, but his teamates were weaker than the Wings so they didn't have as much success.

3. Bourque contributed less to the Bruins than Lidstrom to the Wings, which combined with his weaker teammates, led to less team success.

It's certainly indisputable that Bourque got points on a higher percentage of his team's goal totals, but that doesn't lead to the inescapable conclusion that he "did more."

To put it another way, "comparison to teammates" is no more a valid way of judging a player than "Cup counting." Both, in and of themselves, tell you nothing when attempting to directly compare two players from different teams playing in rather different playstyle-eras.

Or, to put it yet another way, if Bourque had played on the Oilers instead of the Bruins, and played the exact same way, would you say he "did less" because he scored on a lower percentage of his teams' goals but had more team success?

Superb use of logic and bringing clarity.

To the part in bold, I think that's exactly what's being used to dismiss Lidstrom's achievements in contrasting to Bourque.

 

[danincanada]

Superb use of logic and bringing clarity.

To the part in bold, I think that's exactly what's being used to dismiss Lidstrom's achievements in contrasting to Bourque.

There has always been this "double dipping" on the pro-Bourque side.

It's also used when pointing to Bourque having tougher competition for the Norris in the early 90's. That's the same time Lidstrom was starting his NHL career and trying to get recognition so it hurt him as well. It probably would have been more favourable for Lidstrom to start his career when Bourque did. Fetisov was in Russia, Potvin was often injured and/or more focused on Cups, and guys like Carlyle, Wilson, and Langway were winning Norris'. Instead, Lidstrom started his career in a fully integrated NHL which in hindsight appears to have had an explosion of high end talent.

 

[Wrath]

Superb use of logic and bringing clarity.

To the part in bold, I think that's exactly what's being used to dismiss Lidstrom's achievements in contrasting to Bourque.

If Bourque won 5 cups with the Oilers as their best defenseman each year (just swap him for Coffey in the early years if you wanna nitpick), then do we dismiss Lidstrom for "only" winning 4 cups?

Or do we dismiss Bourque's achievements for having more team success on a "better team"?

 

[Wrath]

There has always been this "double dipping" on the pro-Bourque side.

It's also used when pointing to Bourque having tougher competition for the Norris in the early 90's. That's the same time Lidstrom was starting his NHL career and trying to get recognition so it hurt him as well. It probably would have been more favourable for Lidstrom to start his career when Bourque did. Fetisov was in Russia, Potvin was often injured and/or more focused on Cups, and guys like Carlyle, Wilson, and Langway were winning Norris'. Instead, Lidstrom started his career in a fully integrated NHL which in hindsight appears to have had an explosion of high end talent.

Ok come on lets be fair.

There's been prodigious amounts of double dipping on both sides.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Never mind that the data is from the highest scoring era, where the league had its highest lack of parity as well. This info was covered in the thread earlier, and adjusted.

Are you really trying to use lack of parity in an argument between Lidstrom's and Bourque's respective team situations?

You have got to be kidding me?

You know, there was a time when no one knew about Datsyuk and Zetterberg, they were Rookies, and then took a few years to shed their playoff choker label. This is what I mean about people considering this as one static situation, at it's peak. We're talking about 2+ decades, with wholesale roster turnovers, and Rookies going to become great players.

Lidstrom was consistent throughout, and AGAIN, some of you would do well to understand the Wings system before you come back and claim that Lidstrom wasn't the engine for the offense (transition, puck mobility) and defense. He was elite at every single situation.

And again, NO ONE is saying that Lidstrom was not elite, that he wasn't a good puck mover or transition player, that he didn't QB a PP well. (I will however argue with you every day of the week and twice on Sunday that Lidstrom was an elite puck possession player on his own.)

What is ACTUALLY being said is that as good as Lidstrom was at moving the puck, as good as he was as a transition player, that as good as he was at playing in a possession system...Bourque was a level better in these aspects and was a possession player on his own.

Why is this so hard to understand?
Even the most avid Bourque supporter has no issue agreeing that on a purely defensive and positional level, that Lidstrom was better. You watch both players play and you can see that Lidstrom was just a little bit more refined defensively, was just a step better positionally, had just a little better grasp of his angles.
Now, do we sit here and start crying foul when something like this is said? Do we try and go all extreme every time saying "Oh so Bourque sucks at defense eh?"?
NO, we don't!
We see that while Bourque was an outstanding defensive player, we can also see that Lidstrom was a little better.
We say that Bourque was better than Lidstrom at this aspect or that aspect and it's an extreme response almost every time proven easily by you doing exactly that right now in your response above.

Oh and the whole "played in a higher scoring era" works both ways here my friend and all but proves that Bourque's game control and puck possession was indeed that much greater.
Completely ignoring the offensive side of the game and just concentrating on GA/60 mins we quickly see that despite Lidstrom being a better pure defender, that despite Lidstrom playing in a lower scoring era and despite Lidstrom playing in a better defensively structured and puck possession team system...Bourque should get pummeled by Lidstrom in this stat yet he comes out virtually tied with Lidstrom in GA/60.
Do I now have to adjust those values for era (LIKE WHAT'S DONE FOR BOURQUE'S OFFENSE CONSTANTLY) to drive this home or can we all just agree where it would lead?

Lidstrom was a hell of a player, one of the greatest ever but Bourque was the better overall player and even more importantly, Bourque was overall, the more effective player.

 

[Fugu]

Are you really trying to use lack of parity in an argument between Lidstrom's and Bourque's respective team situations?

You have got to be kidding me?

You really should read a post fully, maybe a second time, before jumping in. Your summary is completely out of context.

And again, NO ONE is saying that Lidstrom was not elite, that he wasn't a good puck mover or transition player, that he didn't QB a PP well. (I will however argue with you every day of the week and twice on Sunday that Lidstrom was an elite puck possession player on his own.)

What is ACTUALLY being said is that as good as Lidstrom was at moving the puck, as good as he was as a transition player, that as good as he was at playing in a possession system...Bourque was a level better in these aspects and was a possession player on his own.

Why is this so hard to understand?
Even the most avid Bourque supporter has no issue agreeing that on a purely defensive and positional level, that Lidstrom was better. You watch both players play and you can see that Lidstrom was just a little bit more refined defensively, was just a step better positionally, had just a little better grasp of his angles.
Now, do we sit here and start crying foul when something like this is said? Do we try and go all extreme every time saying "Oh so Bourque sucks at defense eh?"?
NO, we don't!
We see that while Bourque was an outstanding defensive player, we can also see that Lidstrom was a little better.
We say that Bourque was better than Lidstrom at this aspect or that aspect and it's an extreme response almost every time proven easily by you doing exactly that right now in your response above.

Oh and the whole "played in a higher scoring era" works both ways here my friend and all but proves that Bourque's game control and puck possession was indeed that much greater.
Completely ignoring the offensive side of the game and just concentrating on GA/60 mins we quickly see that despite Lidstrom being a better pure defender, that despite Lidstrom playing in a lower scoring era and despite Lidstrom playing in a better defensively structured and puck possession team system...Bourque should get pummeled by Lidstrom in this stat yet he comes out virtually tied with Lidstrom in GA/60.
Do I now have to adjust those values for era (LIKE WHAT'S DONE FOR BOURQUE'S OFFENSE CONSTANTLY) to drive this home or can we all just agree where it would lead?

Lidstrom was a hell of a player, one of the greatest ever but Bourque was the better overall player and even more importantly, Bourque was overall, the more effective player.

Well, you make it sound like I just thought I'd throw that out randomly, that there was no such inference in the posts to which I responded to bring up those very issues.

And regardless of our own preferences on style points, etc., there is no way I will accept that any defenseman under discuss was better than Lidstrom at the puck possession system the Wings seemed to make the world aware of, to the detriment of their opponents. I will contend that it worked as well as it did because of him, and then the elite skill forwards and mobile defenders the Wings cultivated to add to those teams. It was their core philosophy for two decades.

Bourque did have higher offensive output, and that truly was a gift, but as you mention, because he was relied on it to a greater extent than Lids was on Detroit, that certainly had to be a factor. It's not like Lidstrom had difficulty offensively however.

 

[Fugu]

If Bourque won 5 cups with the Oilers as their best defenseman each year (just swap him for Coffey in the early years if you wanna nitpick), then do we dismiss Lidstrom for "only" winning 4 cups?

Or do we dismiss Bourque's achievements for having more team success on a "better team"?

Read overg's options, and then tell me.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You really should read a post fully, maybe a second time, before jumping in. Your summary is completely out of context.

It's not, as you are trying to debunk one Bourque related data set based on a parity argument. A parity argument that also applies to the 90's and up to the '04 LO.
I wouldn't be so ignorant to say Bourque's teams were "have nots" but I also wouldn't come close to saying they were a "have" either.
Meanwhile, in the pre-cap era from the early 90's till the '04 LO there was a huge disparity in the League between the small market "have nots" and the large market "have's" and Lidstrom was on one of, if not, the biggest "have" teams during that period.

Don't tell me I'm completely out of context as Devil also saw the thing and called it out.

Well, you make it sound like I just thought I'd throw that out randomly, that there was no such inference in the posts to which I responded to bring up those very issues.

And regardless of our own preferences on style points, etc., there is no way I will accept that any defenseman under discuss was better than Lidstrom at the puck possession system the Wings seemed to make the world aware of, to the detriment of their opponents. I will contend that it worked as well as it did because of him, and then the elite skill forwards and mobile defenders the Wings cultivated to add to those teams. It was their core philosophy for two decades.

Bourque did have higher offensive output, and that truly was a gift, but as you mention, because he was relied on it to a greater extent than Lids was on Detroit, that certainly had to be a factor. It's not like Lidstrom had difficulty offensively however.

And again, I never said Lidstrom was a poor possession player in the Detroit system. What I said was that on his own, Lidstrom was no where near Bourque's level in puck possession and OVERALL game control.
I even went on to detail the GA/60 between the 2 players to show that superiority to which you didn't try to debunk.
I'm all ears though if you have another explanation other than Bourque's ability to keep the puck off of opposing players sticks.