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

[Rhiessan71]

I'd rather have had Lidstrom's career than Bourque's, considering the hardware that each of them won.

I also do think that Bourque was the better defenceman.

Sounds more like Bourque would rather have Lidstrom's team.

 

[kingdok]

I voted Bourque thinking ''who was the best'' but really, Lidstrom had a better career with 4 cups and 7 norris

 

[Rhiessan71]

The better all around defenseman was Lidstrom. He was always defense first and was still the best offensive defenseman of his generation.

Except it was a pretty low end generation for offensive Dmen. Basically Lidstrom was the best of an average bunch.
And was he actually the best offensive Dman during that time?
Funny that from 91/92 until the '05 lockout I see Leetch with 767 points in 109 less games (0.85 PpG) to Lidstrom's 726 points (0.71 PpG).
I also see Lidstrom finishing in a tie for 7th in PpG with Zubov among players that played at least 600 games during that time.
Hey, guess who's #1...that's right, Bourque with 0.87 PpG.

What's the argument going to be for this? That I manipulated the data by not including Lidstrom's final seasons?
Considering his career PpG total is 0.73, sounds like 0.71 a more than fair value for his offense.

See, the biggest argument to this was that with the changes in the game and role of the Dman, that Lidstrom's level of offense was the best possible. That Dmen producing high numbers at even strength was a thing of the past and that we can't hold that against Lidstrom.
And you know, for a while that theory held some water and was looking like it might be plausible.
But then along comes Mr. Karlsson and it's bye bye theory, don't let the door hit you on the way out. So sad, so long, bye bye.

Lidstrom was able to take very good teams and make them great, as well as play at an elite level over many different changes that the game saw over his career. He played most of his prime in a 30 team league versus Bourque playing a high percentage of his in a 21 team league. Many opponents of Lidstrom act like sure fire hall of famers like Pronger and Neidermayer are not good competition, when they can compare directly to players like Coffey, Chelios, and Stevens, which really doesn't matter because they comparison is between Lidstrom and Bourque.

Trying to prop up Lidstrom's competition aint going to work, sorry.
That you are actually trying to put Pronger and Nieds on Chelios', Coffey's and Stevens level is just...well...ridiculous!!!
Let's start with Pronger. He could have challenged Lidstrom for many of his Norris IF he could have avoided the injury bug and not brought down the wrath of the League so many times for being an idiot. That being said, only Detroit homers/Lidstrom fanboi's would take Lidstrom over a healthy, disciplined Pronger in a one game/one series situation in their primes.
Niedermayer...what can say, he might just be the most over-rated Dman in history but hey, with all the Hardware he has and by some of the criteria being spouted in this thread, I guess he had a better career than Bourque too

I've argued this a few times, but I'll try again at 3 am... Well, what's the point? You can't win against Bourque supporters. With other players they compare them to their peers versus other generations, with Lidstrom, his competition sucked. Well, trophy wise he cleaned up versus Bourque, 4 Cups, 6 Finals, Conn Smythe, 7 Norris, 10 All Star(mind you mostly against more competition, we established much of Bourque's prime was against less teams and players), yet again, it was less competition, Lidstrom played for better teams(even though two of the four Cup wins came on a first place team and Bourque was unable to win himself on very good teams, including teams that placed better than Detroit).

Right, right, right.
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.
Meanwhile, Lidstrom IS on the closest thing to a Dynasty in the modern NHL as you can get. A team that routinely wet out and tried to buy Cups (and were successful twice).
Henri Richard is quite obviously the best career player in history of course.

Well Bourque scored more points, right? Well much of that was in a high scoring era, Lidstrom dominated his peers and was generally always top 3 in scoring for much of his career, and the only dman not to play in the 80's to score over 1000 points. Anyone else and they would dismiss Bourque's points totals for the era he played in, not vs Lidstrom.

Oh? And the reverse isn't true?
That Lidstrom's grand defensive game wasn't helped by playing in a much more strict and locked down defensive time?

You know what's funny though?
That despite Bourque playing at a time that so many more goals were scored and Lidstrom playing at a time that so fewer goals were scored. That Bourque's GA/60 (goals against per 60 mins played) is actually lower than Lidstrom's.
Despite what should be a huge disadvantage for Bourque in this metric and a huge advantage for Lidstrom (not to mention his supposedly vastly superior defensive game), Bourque still comes out on top.
Weird eh
One on one, sure, I'd go with Lidstrom but for over-all effectiveness at keeping the puck out of your net...yeah, it's Bourque sorry.

Much of the argument against Lidstrom is anecdotal or grasping; he played against better competition, Lidstrom always played on an all star team, Bourque was runner up more, Bourque was better to MY eyes, Bourque's Cup win was a great hockey moment, Bourque never played on teams like the Wings, if Lidstrom played against prime so and so he wouldn't have won as much...

When it comes to hard facts, it's irrefutable for Bourque, but for Lidstrom it's not... Bourque has more first team all stars. Lidstrom has more Norris trophies(well less competition, Bourque has more runner up, etc). Lidstrom has 4 Cups, well Bourque never played on such great teams(he routinely played on good to great teams)...

Funny, I just gave you a hard fact that goes against everything you are trying to portray as Lidstrom's advantage over Bourque and I haven't even mentioned their respective R-on/R-off numbers (and trust me, you don't want me to either heh).

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

Another thing, people LOVE to bring up international achievements for Canadians, but never to the same extent to Euros. Lidstrom has a Gold Medal, which is never brought up vs Bourque.
I just don't understand why such a great player, literally a guy who is one of the best players to ever play the game, couldn't win a Cup until he was traded from his beloved team, to a stacked team and favourite to win it all. Lidstrom won 4 Cups, over 6 Finals, with a Conn Smythe, first Euro Captain to win the Cup, NEVER missed the playoffs, rarely ever even missed regular season games, won over different time frames and different eras with different players... He's got more Cups, Norris Trophies, Conn Smythe, playing against Hall of Famers just like Bourque did, and was the backbone of the best franchise over a good 20 years(sorry Steve), so he's my pick above Bourque.

Backbone over Stevie eh? Oooookkkk.
I mean let's just forget about the loooong list of Selke winners Lidstrom had in front of him helping right? 4 of them to be exact and another (Zetts) just missing out on being the 5th.
Or are you going to start taking away from a Fedorov, an Yzerman, a Draper or a Datsyuk and claim that they won because of Lidstrom?

Try that out and see what happens heh.

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

Yes, I'll concede Ray had more all star appearances and overall Norris voting, hell, he even ALMOST won a Hart(but didn't). When it comes to hard evidence though, I believe Lidstrom wins. If you can bring up that hard evidence and it shows that Bourque was clearly better, I'm all for it.

I did but if you want the R-on/R-off numbers as well to further drive home the point, all you have to do is ask my friend.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Does it strike anyone else as unconvincing that someone would try and use the "higher scoring era" argument against Bourque when his adjusted point total only goes from 1,579 to 1,426 and he's still the highest-scoring defenceman of all-time by a considerable margin (and 15th instead of 11th adjusted place-wise)?

I mean, that's honestly such a bizarre argument to make about a player whose career spanned multiple eras where he was a top three defender offensively virtually every single season he played.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Sounds more like Bourque would rather have Lidstrom's team.

The team debate is not so cut and dry.

Bourque played on some extremely deep teams. Maybe not deep in star power, but certainly deep in terms of veterans, depth scoring and rolling four lines.

If my math is right, the Bruins went 12-5-2 in the 19 games Bourque missed between 1993 and 1994.

In 1993, they had the second best record in the Wales, and in 1994 they had the 6th best record in the NHL out of 26 teams.

The idea that Bourque was some sort of man on an island is a narrative steeped in misinformation.

Bourque walked into an ideal situation. The Bruins had four straight 100-point seasons and Adams titles immediately preceding Bourques arrival. The team who should have won the Cup in 1979 was led by guys in their prime - the top three and five of the top eight scorers were 27 or under. Park was 30' but an old 30.

When Bourque was the lone star, the Bruins were massively mediocre and it showed with the beatings they took in the playoffs from the Habs. The were Bourque's peak/prime years in which the Bruins were a league-wide poster child for playoff failures. It wasnt until the Bruins rebuilt their depth with three solid two-way scoring lines that Boston went deep into the postseason.

Lidstrom had played with so many different Rosters with tons of turnover but the results never changed. The 1995 Cup finals team had only 10 holdovers on the 1998 cup team (regulars). The 2008 roster was completely turned over from the 2002 team.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

The Pens were not a Dynasty jesus.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Except it was a pretty low end generation for offensive Dmen. Basically Lidstrom was the best of an average bunch.
And was he actually the best offensive Dman during that time?
Funny that from 91/92 until the '05 lockout I see Leetch with 767 points in 109 less games (0.85 PpG) to Lidstrom's 726 points (0.71 PpG).
I also see Lidstrom finishing in a tie for 7th in PpG with Zubov among players that played at least 600 games during that time.
Hey, guess who's #1...that's right, Bourque with 0.87 PpG.

What's the argument going to be for this? That I manipulated the data by not including Lidstrom's final seasons?
Considering his career PpG total is 0.73, sounds like 0.71 a more than fair value for his offense.

See, the biggest argument to this was that with the changes in the game and role of the Dman, that Lidstrom's level of offense was the best possible. That Dmen producing high numbers at even strength was a thing of the past and that we can't hold that against Lidstrom.
And you know, for a while that theory held some water and was looking like it might be plausible.
But then along comes Mr. Karlsson and it's bye bye theory, don't let the door hit you on the way out. So sad, so long, bye bye.




Trying to prop up Lidstrom's competition aint going to work, sorry.
That you are actually trying to put Pronger and Nieds on Chelios', Coffey's and Stevens level is just...well...ridiculous!!!
Let's start with Pronger. He could have challenged Lidstrom for many of his Norris IF he could have avoided the injury bug and not brought down the wrath of the League so many times for being an idiot. That being said, only Detroit homers/Lidstrom fanboi's would take Lidstrom over a healthy, disciplined Pronger in a one game/one series situation in their primes.
Niedermayer...what can say, he might just be the most over-rated Dman in history but hey, with all the Hardware he has and by some of the criteria being spouted in this thread, I guess he had a better career than Bourque too



Right, right, right.
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.
Meanwhile, Lidstrom IS on the closest thing to a Dynasty in the modern NHL as you can get. A team that routinely wet out and tried to buy Cups (and were successful twice).
Henri Richard is quite obviously the best career player in history of course.



Oh? And the reverse isn't true?
That Lidstrom's grand defensive game wasn't helped by playing in a much more strict and locked down defensive time?

You know what's funny though?
That despite Bourque playing at a time that so many more goals were scored and Lidstrom playing at a time that so fewer goals were scored. That Bourque's GA/60 (goals against per 60 mins played) is actually lower than Lidstrom's.
Despite what should be a huge disadvantage for Bourque in this metric and a huge advantage for Lidstrom (not to mention his supposedly vastly superior defensive game), Bourque still comes out on top.
Weird eh
One on one, sure, I'd go with Lidstrom but for over-all effectiveness at keeping the puck out of your net...yeah, it's Bourque sorry.



Funny, I just gave you a hard fact that goes against everything you are trying to portray as Lidstrom's advantage over Bourque and I haven't even mentioned their respective R-on/R-off numbers (and trust me, you don't want me to either heh).

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




Backbone over Stevie eh? Oooookkkk.
I mean let's just forget about the loooong list of Selke winners Lidstrom had in front of him helping right? 4 of them to be exact and another (Zetts) just missing out on being the 5th.
Or are you going to start taking away from a Fedorov, an Yzerman, a Draper or a Datsyuk and claim that they won because of Lidstrom?

Try that out and see what happens heh.

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



I did but if you want the R-on/R-off numbers as well to further drive home the point, all you have to do is ask my friend.

Which dynasties stopped Bourque between 1993 and 1999?

Or 1984-1987.

 

[Big Phil]

Does it strike anyone else as unconvincing that someone would try and use the "higher scoring era" argument against Bourque when his adjusted point total only goes from 1,579 to 1,426 and he's still the highest-scoring defenceman of all-time by a considerable margin (and 15th instead of 11th adjusted place-wise)?

I mean, that's honestly such a bizarre argument to make about a player whose career spanned multiple eras where he was a top three defender offensively virtually every single season he played.

Bourque led his team in points 5 times, which is very-Orr like. Actually Orr only did it twice. Coffey once. Leetch twice. This doesn't make Bourque a more prolific offensive defenseman over Orr or Coffey but even look at Leetch who we would all consider to be very elite offensively, he had Messier kicking around and that was it. It was easier for Leetch to lead his teams in points than Coffey or Orr who had the likes of Gretzky/Lemieux/Esposito etc. to deal with. Yet Bourque had pretty much the same type of talent as Leetch saw on his Rangers teams and was at the top of the scoring chart 5 times.

People marvel at the likes of Mike Green getting over 30 goals again, but he never led his team in points. Okay, Bourque doesn't do it either most likely if Ovechkin is on the team but still. Bourque did this on a team that was pretty good. One that made the playoffs every year. One that hit 100 points and at one time led the NHL in points (not that particular season but still). Now we see Karlsson finally do it once and we see how rare it is. But Bourque did it 5 times. I like to bring this up when somoene thinks Lidstrom was as good offensively. No way. Bourque is the all-time shots leader who actually led the league in that category three seasons.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The team debate is not so cut and dry.

Bourque played on some extremely deep teams. Maybe not deep in star power, but certainly deep in terms of veterans, depth scoring and rolling four lines.

If my math is right, the Bruins went 12-5-2 in the 19 games Bourque missed between 1993 and 1994.

In 1993, they had the second best record in the Wales, and in 1994 they had the 6th best record in the NHL out of 26 teams.

The idea that Bourque was some sort of man on an island is a narrative steeped in misinformation.

Bourque walked into an ideal situation. The Bruins had four straight 100-point seasons and Adams titles immediately preceding Bourques arrival. The team who should have won the Cup in 1979 was led by guys in their prime - the top three and five of the top eight scorers were 27 or under. Park was 30' but an old 30.

When Bourque was the lone star, the Bruins were massively mediocre and it showed with the beatings they took in the playoffs from the Habs. The were Bourque's peak/prime years in which the Bruins were a league-wide poster child for playoff failures. It wasnt until the Bruins rebuilt their depth with three solid two-way scoring lines that Boston went deep into the postseason.

Lidstrom had played with so many different Rosters with tons of turnover but the results never changed. The 1995 Cup finals team had only 10 holdovers on the 1998 cup team (regulars). The 2008 roster was completely turned over from the 2002 team.

This over-hyping of the actual teams Bourque played for is not new but it's been disproven at length around here.
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.
If those teams were anything close to as deep as you are pretending here then there should have been absolutely no reason why Bourque was playing in excess of 40 mins a game during the regular season and even higher mins in the POs.
Sorry, what you're saying here just doesn't fly with reality.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This over-hyping of the actual teams Bourque played for is not new but it's been disproven at length around here.
Almost all of those games were average to above average at best.
They became good to very good teams because of Bourque, make no mistake about.
If those teams were anything close to as deep as you are pretending here then there should have been absolutely no reason why Bourque was playing in excess of 40 mins a game during the regular season and even higher mins in the POs.
Sorry, what you're saying here just doesn't fly with reality.

Bourque did not play "in excess of 40 minutes per game" during the regular season - that's clearly an exaggeration. It was more like 30 minutes per game (slightly under half the even strength time, slightly over half the shorthanded time, the large majority of the powerplay time).

 

[Steve Kournianos]

This over-hyping of the actual teams Bourque played for is not new but it's been disproven at length around here.
Almost all of those games were average to above average at best.
They became good to very good teams because of Bourque, make no mistake about.
If those teams were anything close to as deep as you are pretending here then there should have been absolutely no reason why Bourque was playing in excess of 40 mins a game during the regular season and even higher mins in the POs.
Sorry, what you're saying here just doesn't fly with reality.

Yeah. No.

The bruins in league scoring:

1991 5th in NHL
1993 8th in NHL
1994 8th in NHL
1995 4th in EC (no out of conf games)
1996 5th in NHL

Now, lets hear why the Bruins were one of the best offensive teams in the conference because of Bourque, not because of depth scoring.

You disproved nothing. You just ignore the stats that debunk your assessment.

Besides, nobody is arguing Bourque didnt carry them in the regular season. The argument is that Bourque was not a consistent postseason performer, and outside of 1990 and 1988, his postseasons rarely, if ever, mirrored his regular seasons.

Sorry, i just cant take a guy seriously who thought the Pens being a dynasty is a legitimate excuse for Bourques subpar postseasons.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah. No.

The bruins in league scoring:

1991 5th in NHL
1993 8th in NHL
1994 8th in NHL
1995 4th in EC (no out of conf games)
1996 5th in NHL

Any particular reason you left on 1992?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bourque did not play "in excess of 40 minutes per game" during the regular season - that's clearly an exaggeration. It was more like 30 minutes per game (slightly under half the even strength time, slightly over half the shorthanded time, the large majority of the powerplay time).

I have never seen numbers from the 80s and early 90s that show different and I actually got out a stop watch for a number of old games from that time.
The lowest I clocked was 37:32 and the highest was 46:21 in a game that went to the full 5:00 OT.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have never seen numbers from the 80s and early 90s that show different and I actually got out a stop watch for a number of old games from that time.
The lowest I clocked was 37:32 and the highest was 46:21 in a game that went to the full 5:00 OT.

I don't believe there are official ice time stats before 1998, but overpass's big spreadsheet lists the % of goals scored when a player was on the ice, and in Bruins games, regularly about 45% of all even strength goals (by both teams) were scored when Bourque was on the ice. Shorthanded, it's generally 55-60%, and on the PP it's 75-100%.

Were you manually clocking ice time while watching TV? I feel like you'd have to be at the rink to accurately do that, right?

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Any particular reason you left on 1992?

The Bruins were mediocre that entire season. I was showing that in their years of being a top team in the league, they were buoyed by an offense that rolled four lines.

The idea that the Bruins were a one-man show is built on a house of cards.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3

In 45 playoff games at 31-37 YO between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a - 28.

That's -28 in 45 games.

Now, cherrypicked no doubt. But the fact that I cant identify one similar period in Lidstrom's career is why I voted for Lidstrom.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Bourque supporters in a nutshell:

When the Bruins were good, it was because of Bourque and Bourque only.

When the Bruins were bad or underachieved, it was everybody's fault except Bourque's.

Everybody Loves Raymond.

 

[canucksfan]

When did you ever hear Bourque say he was satisfied with a first round exit? I never heard that from him. The guy obviously wanted to win a Cup, which explains going to Colorado. Boston was religiously a team that Sinden was cheap with. They had the money to attract more stars and didn't. The management was content with no Cups. Not Bourque. Plus even in 1991 you'll remember that was the series that Neely got hurt from Ulfie. And even though the Pens won 4 games straight, Bourque still had 4 points in that loss. And it was Mario Lemieux he was going against, just saying.

Mlbury also tried to get revenge by dressing goons which didn't work.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Not adjusted:

.98 = Bourque's Regular Season PPG
.84 = Playoff PPG
17% drop (I believe around a 20% drop is average)

.74 = Lidstrom's Regular Season PPG*
.71 = Playoff PPG
4% drop

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't believe there are official ice time stats before 1998, but overpass's big spreadsheet lists the % of goals scored when a player was on the ice, and in Bruins games, regularly about 45% of all even strength goals (by both teams) were scored when Bourque was on the ice. Shorthanded, it's generally 55-60%, and on the PP it's 75-100%.

Were you manually clocking ice time while watching TV? I feel like you'd have to be at the rink to accurately do that, right?

Oh for sure it would be 100% accurate actually being there but we're talking about 16 games and while not 100% accurate, I would easily say it at most a minute out plus or minus and that's still a freak in ton of minutes.
Playoff games, forget about it, its close to 50 every game without a doubt.
The thing you realise quickly when watching those games is that Ray rarely changed during the play, almost exclusively only on a stoppage. That is the biggest difference between him and everyone else.

 

[Big Phil]

From 1984 - 1987, while in the prime years of 24-27, Bourque in 15 games over 4 playoffs had 1g-7a-9p and was a -3

In 45 playoff games at 31-37 YO between 1992 and 1998, Bourque was 8g-27a-35p and a - 28.

That's -28 in 45 games.

Now, cherrypicked no doubt. But the fact that I cant identify one similar period in Lidstrom's career is why I voted for Lidstrom.

Man, cherrypicked you bet. You couldn't have picked better years for your case. You ignored 1983 when he had 23 points in 17 games. You ignore his biggest years in 1988, 1990, 1991 too. No one ever said that Bourque was what was holding the Bruins back. Overall, how can a person see 180 points in 214 playoff games and find fault with it? He topped it off with a 10 point playoff in 2001 when he finally won. If I wanted to sell something like this to people I'd point out that Lidstrom wasn't very productive early on in 1992, 1993 and 1994. Or in 2003, 2004 and 2006. But should I? Or can I admit that great players can't see immortal every year and even some of the best have off playoff years where they could have done more? I mean if we get down to it and push comes to shove could Orr have been more productive in 1973, 1974 and 1975 in the postseason? Yeah, especially 1973. But how much of the story does that tell?

The Bruins were mediocre that entire season. I was showing that in their years of being a top team in the league, they were buoyed by an offense that rolled four lines.

The idea that the Bruins were a one-man show is built on a house of cards.

I wouldn't necessarily say one-man show, no. There was Middleton earlier in the 1980s and Pederson was pretty good for a short time. Then Neely did alright for himself, Janney was decent and Oates of course was probably the biggest help for Bourque out of anyone. But yeah, the guy led the Bruins in points 5 times and you aren't going to find a defenseman that has done that. So it is really hard to argue that he wasn't the "main" reason for the Bruins offense most years. He certainly was many years, it was just a commonly accepted fact.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Come on! Bourque is the better d-man but this poll is about the best career. Lidström clearly wins this one.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Come on! Bourque is the better d-man but this poll is about the best career. Lidström clearly wins this one.

Why so? More cups? An individuals career is more than how often their team won. One player does not control this, he contributes to it. If everyone who had more cups than Bourque had a better career than we're getting into some pretty murky waters. Trophy counting, same thing, 5 Norrises to 7, based on adjustments for competition etc, pretty much a wash, all things considered. 19 all-star selections to 12, mirky again. You cannot define ones career without looking at their peak performances, and imo, Bourque's peak is quite a bit greater than Lidstrom's. A career is still based on the individual's performance.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Man, cherrypicked you bet. You couldn't have picked better years for your case. You ignored 1983 when he had 23 points in 17 games. You ignore his biggest years in 1988, 1990, 1991 too. No one ever said that Bourque was what was holding the Bruins back. Overall, how can a person see 180 points in 214 playoff games and find fault with it? He topped it off with a 10 point playoff in 2001 when he finally won. If I wanted to sell something like this to people I'd point out that Lidstrom wasn't very productive early on in 1992, 1993 and 1994. Or in 2003, 2004 and 2006. But should I? Or can I admit that great players can't see immortal every year and even some of the best have off playoff years where they could have done more? I mean if we get down to it and push comes to shove could Orr have been more productive in 1973, 1974 and 1975 in the postseason? Yeah, especially 1973. But how much of the story does that tell?



I wouldn't necessarily say one-man show, no. There was Middleton earlier in the 1980s and Pederson was pretty good for a short time. Then Neely did alright for himself, Janney was decent and Oates of course was probably the biggest help for Bourque out of anyone. But yeah, the guy led the Bruins in points 5 times and you aren't going to find a defenseman that has done that. So it is really hard to argue that he wasn't the "main" reason for the Bruins offense most years. He certainly was many years, it was just a commonly accepted fact.

I'm not saying Bourque should have been immortal every postseason.

Statistically, Bourque was more mortal than Lidstrom come playoff time.

And only a stat watcher would credit Bourque for 1991. Yeah for two rounds. His play was beyond abysmal in the four straight losses to the Pens.

All the Bruins were bad. But Bourque stood out because I don't think anybody ever expected anybody to toy with him the way the Pens did, and that includes the Dynasty Oilers in 1988 and 1990.

It was the shape of things to come. Richer, May, Lindsay, Bellows.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Playoff statistics for selected defensemen:

Lidstrom (1992, 1993, 2000, 2003, 2006): 37 games, 14 points, -18

Potvin (1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988): 48 games, 21 points, -17

Stevens (1983, 1985, 1989, 1992, 1997, 1999): 39 games, 17 points, -15

One can cherry-pick any player's statistics in attempt to make them look bad.