Hey now, these are the HF boards where the posters tell me the greatest sports and entertainment of all time happened in the last 25 years and posters use unadjusted stats to prove that the athletes of the last 25 years are the greatest of all time. Please be true to the spirit of the HF boards.
(shaking my head at myself, not you)
Hahaha. I had to re-write one of my earlier posts about 5 times, because it kept coming out sounding just like the posts to which you're referring. I was trying to get across that the two spent significant amounts of their careers playing in vastly different eras of hockey, without it sounding like those "newer! faster! better!" posts we always see.
I *think* almost everyone in this thread would agree that both Bourque and Lidstrom played a style well-suited for their times and teams. To the extent there is a debate, it might be as to whether one style was inherently better than the other.
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.
I can only speak for myself, but my objections to your statements came when you stated that Lidstrom had some sort of luxury in sitting back and concentrating on defense, as if to state his job was somehow easier than Bourque's. A lot of these issues are matters of perspective, and I think you're only looking at one side of the coin.
1. Does the fact that Bourque played in the 80's and early 90's falsely inflate his offensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his defensive prowess?
2. Does the fact that Lidstrom played in the late 90's and 00's falsely inflate his defensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his offensive prowess?
3. Does the fact that Bourque played on lesser teams which never won a Cup falsely deflate his positive impact on those teams? On the flip side, does the fact that he was the best player on lesser teams falsely inflate his positive impact on those teams?
4. Does the fact that Lidstrom played on four Cup teams falsely inflate his impact on those teams? Or does the fact that he played with numerous all stars and HOF'ers falsely deflate his impact on those teams?
For every one of those questions, I'd argue the answer is "yes, at least a little bit." The point being, if you're going to state that Lidstrom had the "luxury" of not being "the guy", you also have to admit that Bourque had the "luxury" of not having to compete with multiple HOF'ers on his team. If you're going to argue that Lidstrom "sat back" and concentrated on defense, then you also need to concede that Bourque "didn't have to worry about" playing a positionally demanding 5-man system.
There was a huge shift in how the game was played which took place during the mid 1990's. I simply think you're over-crediting Bourque for playing more before that shift. That doesn't mean Lidstrom is better for having played after, but I think it does mean you have to take into consideration how the role of star defensemen changed during that time, and recognize that Lidstrom played a game very-well suited to the "new era."
And of course, everyone always has to keep in mind that we're comparing 2 of the very top players of all time here. Hell, even bring Coffey and Stevens back into the mix, you're still talking about players who were better than at least 95% (very rough math, please feel free to adjust either way as you see fit, I'm just trying to make a broad point) of defensemen who have ever played in the NHL.