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

[Boreal01]

Raymond Bourque.

 

[Rhiessan71]

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

And you truly don't understand why this was?
The thing that dries up the most in the PO's is even strength scoring so of course Bourque's offensive numbers are going to be hurt more than Lidstrom's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And you truly don't understand why this was?
The thing that dries up the most in the PO's is even strength scoring so of course Bourque's offensive numbers are going to be hurt more than Lidstrom's.

You sure about that? I think PP opportunities dry up too.


I think that if there's any "excuse" for Bourque, its that on the playoffs, other teams focused on shutting him down, while there were other players on Detroit teams focused on

 

[David Bruce Banner]

1 Lidstrom - 4 Cups, 7 Norris, Conn Smythe, Olympic Gold
2 Bourque - 1 Cup, 5 Norris, Career Leader in G,A,Pts by a defenseman
3 Coffey - 4 Cups, 3 Norris


4 Stevens - 3 Cups, Conn Smythe

Yeah, but without the space between Coffey and Stevens.

 

[JaysCyYoung]

You sure about that? I think PP opportunities dry up too.


I think that if there's any "excuse" for Bourque, its that on the playoffs, other teams focused on shutting him down, while there were other players on Detroit teams focused on

This is an excellent point. Lidstrom was privileged enough to play on frequently star-studded teams that had numerous other high-quality defensive options that Bourque didn't have.

During his tenure in Detroit Lidstrom got to play alongside Hall of Famers like Fetisov, Chelios, and Murphy, in addition to all-stars like Chiasson, Konstantinov, and Rafalski. I can't even think of a single defender that Bourque got to play with on Boston's blue-line even remotely close to that kind of quality. Pre-Hartford Glen Wesley perhaps? Knee-less Gord Kluzak?

 

[Killion]

This is an excellent point. Lidstrom was privileged enough to play on frequently star-studded teams that had numerous other high-quality defensive options that Bourque didn't have...... I can't even think of a single defender that Bourque got to play with on Boston's blue-line even remotely close to that kind of quality. Pre-Hartford Glen Wesley perhaps? Knee-less Gord Kluzak?

So, if he was that brilliant, then what happened? I really dont "get" this whole Ray Bourque "Love~in". Are you kiddin me? Built like a Tank
and a Mess of a Mind. What in H.E. double El's did he actually do in Boston that anyone would or should Deify this guy? He was a Pedestrian
Defenceman IMO, vastly, grossly over~rated. Into what Glory Land did he carry the Bruins? Hype. BS. Nonsense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is an excellent point. Lidstrom was privileged enough to play on frequently star-studded teams that had numerous other high-quality defensive options that Bourque didn't have.

During his tenure in Detroit Lidstrom got to play alongside Hall of Famers like Fetisov, Chelios, and Murphy, in addition to all-stars like Chiasson, Konstantinov, and Rafalski. I can't even think of a single defender that Bourque got to play with on Boston's blue-line even remotely close to that kind of quality. Pre-Hartford Glen Wesley perhaps? Knee-less Gord Kluzak?

Yeah, but its not like Bourque had no help. In 1995, NJ focused on shadowing Can Neely (to great success).

 

[Fugu]

All those Red Wings teams were great because of Lidstrom. There's no way to do history where you get to see what so-and-so would be like if they had X, and then didn't have X.

I think he helped the Wings more than the Wings helped him. And you know who agrees with me, calls him the One Constant on all the teams that won or almost won? Ken Holland.

I wasn't always convinced this was the case, but in his waning years, I finally accepted that he was the cornerstone.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All those Red Wings teams were great because of Lidstrom. There's no way to do history where you get to see what so-and-so would be like if they had X, and then didn't have X.

I think he helped the Wings more than the Wings helped him. And you know who agrees with me, calls him the One Constant on all the teams that won or almost won? Ken Holland.

I wasn't always convinced this was the case, but in his waning years, I finally accepted that he was the cornerstone.

I don't disagree with you at all about Lidstrom's importance, but I do think that when you are comparing the playoff stats of two players, it is relevant which one the opposition could focus on shutting down. Even if Lidstrom was the most important overall Wing, he wasn't the focus of the offense, right? Where Bourque was more counted on to lead Boston's offense.

 

[Fugu]

I don't disagree with you at all about Lidstrom's importance, but I do think that when you are comparing the playoff stats of two players, it is relevant which one the opposition could focus on shutting down. Even if Lidstrom was the most important overall Wing, he wasn't the focus of the offense, right? Where Bourque was more counted on to lead Boston's offense.

If he wasn't the focus of the defense, he should have been. He was on the ice an incredible amount of time, and always out in every key situation-- facing the best opposition, full strength or special teams, he was THE guy. Last minute of a game and you need a goal or to protect a lead? Lidstrom was on the ice. Key PP? Lidstrom was on the ice. Down a man or two and the opposition puts out their biggest guns? Yup, Lidstrom was on the ice.

The Wings offense has relied on a highly mobile, puck moving defense ever since Bowman became the coach, and then beyond. No one was better at driving this machine than Lidstrom.

But that really is just half the story because his defensive awareness and play, in his own end, is often quite underrated. The very last guy standing that the coaches wanted out there at the absolute or most critical juncture was Lidstrom.

 

[Killion]

Where Bourque was more counted on to lead Boston's offense.

And where did Raymond Bourque take the Bruins TD? What kind of quality Superduperstar are you even taliking about? Ha?... quite possibly the most over rated player of all time is what Ray Bourque is. Lane player. If he was any more obvious it would be frightening which it isnt. Yet everyone dresses him up in Tuxedo black & white, greatest thing since God knows.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Boston's offense between 1992 to 1997 ran through Adam Oates. Oates didnt need Bourque. Bourque just made Oates' job easier and vice versa. If you want to get all Corsi on the debate and say that Oates couldnt start the offense without Bourque's possession in the defensive zone, fine. But Oates was the focal point after the trade.

Coaches knew Bourque was unavoidable. They obviously knew what the were doing since both Bourque and the Bruins were playoff underachievers sans the outliers (1983, 1988, 1990).

Jesus Christ. Revisionist history at its finest. Oates was the best playmaker in the game after Mario and Wayne for a period of about seven years. How about Oates game winner in OT against Buffalo off a damn faceoff? I bet Bourque was the reason behind that one too, right?

People have to make up their minds. First they say they lost to the Pens because Neely was hurt, and then they turn around and say garbage like Bourque was the focal point of the offense.

Make up your minds already.

How many times did Bourque lead the Bruins in playoff scoring? Not many. In fact, there were postseasons where a prime Bourque didn't even figure in the top 5 in team playoff scoring, or was outproduced significantly by forwards.

 

[JCraw1]

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

All this shows is that Bourque was way better offensively in the regular season and easily better offensively in the playoffs.

1.16 = Yzerman's Regular Season PPG
0.94 = Playoff PPG
19% drop

1.07 = Messier's Regular Season PPG
1.25 = Playoff PPG
14% raise

1.25 = Forsberg's Regular Season PPG
1.13 = Playoff PPG
10% drop

1.14 = Lindros' Regular Season PPG
1.08 = Playoff PPG
5% drop

1.11 = Bure's Regular Season PPG
1.09 = Playoff PPG
2% drop

0.94 = Fedorov's Regular Season PPG
0.96 = Playoff PPG
2% raise

1.00 = Sundin's Regular Season PPG
0.90 = Playoff PPG
10% drop

1.12 = Savard's Regular Season PPG
1.04 = Playoff PPG
7% drop

 

[Steve Kournianos]

All this shows is that Bourque was way better offensively in the regular season and easily better offensively in the playoffs.

1.16 = Yzerman's Regular Season PPG
0.94 = Playoff PPG
19% drop

1.07 = Messier's Regular Season PPG
1.25 = Playoff PPG
14% raise

1.25 = Forsberg's Regular Season PPG
1.13 = Playoff PPG
10% drop

1.14 = Lindros' Regular Season PPG
1.08 = Playoff PPG
5% drop

1.11 = Bure's Regular Season PPG
1.09 = Playoff PPG
2% drop

0.94 = Fedorov's Regular Season PPG
0.96 = Playoff PPG
2% raise

1.00 = Sundin's Regular Season PPG
0.90 = Playoff PPG
10% drop

1.12 = Savard's Regular Season PPG
1.04 = Playoff PPG
7% drop

No it doesn't. And this is a Lidstrom-Bourque debate. Go strawman on other threads. The players you mentioned have no place in this conversation.

He played in over 20 postseasons.

The outliers were 1983, 1988 and 1990. Those dominant postseasons were the exception, not the rule.

Again. If the ridiculous assertion that the Bruins offense solely ran through Bourque was true, then he needs to shoulder the blame for Bostons playoff failures.

Getting targeted, shadowed and double teamed is not an excuse when measuring postseason greatness.

"Oh, well Bourque didn't have great postseasons because he was the primary target and faced top opposition"

What top opposition? Hartford? Buffalo? Florida? A trapping Devils team who missed the playoffs after they won the Cup? Washington in 1998?

Carpenter and Bourque shadowed the hell out of Messier in the 1990 finals. A lot of good that did. Milbury tried to make it that Carpenter was on the ice without the Bourque pairing so there was overlap.

In the critical game 4, the Messier-Anderson-Simpson line shredded them. Bourque had his worst game of the SCF at the worst time.

Remember, this was an Edmonton who was beaten by Minnesota the following year and lost to the Kings in the first round the year prior.

The Pens team who destroyed Boston in 1991 and 1992 were even better in 1993 and lost to the Isles in the first round.

Lidstrom's 2008 performance trumps anything that Bourque ever did. There no excuse for that one. He shut down the best player in the game, had a team full of role players and two star forwards (like Oates and Neely) and a goalie who was old and unreliable.

Plus, the team they beat went on to win the Cup the following year, so they were no fluke.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If he wasn't the focus of the defense, he should have been. He was on the ice an incredible amount of time, and always out in every key situation-- facing the best opposition, full strength or special teams, he was THE guy. Last minute of a game and you need a goal or to protect a lead? Lidstrom was on the ice. Key PP? Lidstrom was on the ice. Down a man or two and the opposition puts out their biggest guns? Yup, Lidstrom was on the ice.

The Wings offense has relied on a highly mobile, puck moving defense ever since Bowman became the coach, and then beyond. No one was better at driving this machine than Lidstrom.

But that really is just half the story because his defensive awareness and play, in his own end, is often quite underrated. The very last guy standing that the coaches wanted out there at the absolute or most critical juncture was Lidstrom.

Pretty much this, we all know about Bourque's offensive prowess and he was better offensively than Lidstrom but Lidstrom was an all time elite Defender who is the equal of any players career in that department.

As for team strengths, once again if people use this point at least be consistent and use it for players other than Lidstrom as well, this is seldom the case sadly.

Yes Lidstrom played on some really good teams but he was driving the bus over that 20 year career more often than not.

 

[Fugu]

<snip>

Lidstrom's 2008 performance trumps anything that Bourque ever did. There no excuse for that one. He shut down the best player in the game, had a team full of role players and two star forwards (like Oates and Neely) and a goalie who was old and unreliable.

Plus, the team they beat went on to win the Cup the following year, so they were no fluke.

In seven games, with Datsyuk missing the first 4-5 of the series, and Lidstrom playing with a surgically repaired testicle (which he almost lost due to the inflammation). Several things had to go wrong for the Wings to lose in 2009.

As an aside, Crosby once said the most difficult defenseman to play against was Lidstrom. That's neither here nor there, just an interesting observation.

 

[Rhiessan71]

In seven games, with Datsyuk missing the first 4-5 of the series, and Lidstrom playing with a surgically repaired testicle (which he almost lost due to the inflammation). Several things had to go wrong for the Wings to lose in 2009.

As an aside, Crosby once said the most difficult defenseman to play against was Lidstrom. That's neither here nor there, just an interesting observation.

The only revisionism going on is the downplaying of Bourque's role/importance to the Bruin's and just how god damned effective he was over-all for how incredibly long.

To say that Boston's offense had more to with Oates when he was there is complete crap.
In Oates' big year in Boston, Bourque was still 5th in the League in shots and the following year he was 3rd over-all total despite missing 10 games and was first in shots per game.
The offense still ran through Bourque, he just had more help than he had in the past.

Also, no one is arguing that Lidstrom wasn't one of the hardest players to play against one on one BUT every piece of information and stat shows that Bourque was not only better than Lidstrom at putting the puck in the opposition net, he was also better at keeping it out of his own.
And if one wants to attempt to downplay the first part of that statement due to era, then one must also give Bourque even more credit for the second part for the same reason.
Quite simply, Bourque's defensive play + his ability to keep the puck off of the sticks of the best opposing players in the first place >>> Lidstrom's pure defensive play.

Do I think Bourque would switch careers with Lidstrom? No.
Do I think Bourque would have switched teams with Lidstrom? Yep and Detroit would have been even better.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

The only revisionism going on is the downplaying of Bourque's role/importance to the Bruin's and just how god damned effective he was over-all for how incredibly long.

To say that Boston's offense had more to with Oates when he was there is complete crap.
In Oates' big year in Boston, Bourque was still 5th in the League in shots and the following year he was 3rd over-all total despite missing 10 games and was first in shots per game.
The offense still ran through Bourque, he just had more help than he had in the past.

Also, no one is arguing that Lidstrom wasn't one of the hardest players to play against one on one BUT every piece of information and stat shows that Bourque was not only better than Lidstrom at putting the puck in the opposition net, he was also better at keeping it out of his own.
And if one wants to attempt to downplay the first part of that statement due to era, then one must also give Bourque even more credit for the second part for the same reason.
Quite simply, Bourque's defensive play + his ability to keep the puck off of the sticks of the best opposing players in the first place >>> Lidstrom's pure defensive play.

Do I think Bourque would switch careers with Lidstrom? No.
Do I think Bourque would have switched teams with Lidstrom? Yep and Detroit would have been even better.

Effectiveness is subjective.

If you ignore the dozen or more playoff series where Bourque was ineffective, then it paints a rosier picture of his overall career contributions.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

I don't know how you people are choosing to define "career" if it doesn't include team accomplishments, I really don't.

 

[plusandminus]

Some comments about Lidstrom (vs Bourque)...

About Lidstrom having less competition

Let's not forget that while Lidstrom always had to compete with the very best defencemen in the world at the time, Bourque did not.
In Soviet there were two excellent defencemen, Fetisov and Kasatonov, who during Canada Cups had shown they were among the 1-6 or so best defencemen the world.
"Kasatonov??" some might react... Well, he truly was very good both defensively (often better than Fetisov) and offensively (sometimes even outscored Fetisov). We who lots of times saw him play in the 80s knows that.


Scoring finishes among defencemen

Scoring ability is of course just one aspect of being a great defenceman, but since it's being mentioned here (often to Bourque's advantage) I comment upon it.
I hope I got all the figures right.

Lidstrom led defencemen in scoring 4 times, Bourque 2 times.

Okey, we know Bourque had to compete against prime Paul Coffey, so we turn to top-2 finishes...

Lidstrom had 8 top-2 finishes, Bourque had 7.

Both had 11 top-3 finishes.

Bourque 16 top-5 finishes, Lidstrom 12.
Bourque 19 top-10, Lidstrom 15.
Bourque 22 top-20, Lidstrom 17.
Bourque 22 top-50, Lidstrom 20.

Lidstrom lost a whole season due to a lockout. It's hard to tell how that affect his longevity (some argue it made him last longer). The regular season before the lockout he finished only 22nd in defencemen scoring (12th in defencemen +/-), but his playoffs were much better.

Overall, they appear basically even career wise in regard to scoring.
Lidstrom had slightly less longevity, but on the other hand is European (went over later, was new to North American play) which might translate to a season or two.

I also think one might be a bit misled by looking at only the points scored, as defencemen in general scored more in the 80s.


Lidstrom's first NHL seasons ("before he rose to stardom")

Rookie season
In his rookie season, at age 22, Lidstrom's scoring finish among defencemen was as high as 9th, having 60 points. Bourque (age 20, North American) finished 5th in his rookie season, with 65 points.
Looking at +/- (which can be very deceptive), Lidstrom was 2nd best defenceman, while Bourque in his rookie season was 3rd.
Fairly equal it seems to me.

Seasons 2-4
Lidstrom then scored considerably fewer points during his next three seasons, with defenceman scoring finishes of 35th, 16th, 20th. "Two year younger" Bourque was 16th, 9th, 5th (not having to face the best Soviets, although that might only marginally have affected his finishes).
Regarding +/-, Lidstrom finished >50th, 2nd, 12th. Bourque finished 11th, 15th, 3rd.

Bourque's offensive stats here seem significantly better.

Lidstrom played on a team he didn't have to carry offensively, for example they had Paul Coffey on the team.

Looking at the playoffs, Lidstroms second season wasn't great. But in his third season he scored 5 pts in 7 games (Coffey had 7) and was +4, and in his fourth season Lidstrom scored 16 pts (Coffey had 18) and was +4.
Bourque had similar numbers in his second-fourth season (and also in his fifth-sixth when he age wise was Lidstrom's age).

So already in his third-fourth seasons, Lidstrom had become a good point scorer in the playoffs, as well as being solid +/- wise (again +/- in itself can be deceptive, but still).

All Star Team
Lidstrom wasn't an All Star Team selection (top-4 in the league) until his seventh season, while also getting votes in his fifth-sixth season (listed as 6th both seasons) and third season (8th).
Bourque was an All Star in each of his seven (and seventeen!) first seasons.
Bourque's AST finishes seem better than his scoring finishes (and +/- finishes), as he in his four first seasons never was top-4 in defencemen scoring, so apparently voters credited more than just good scoring and +/-. (I mention +/-, because while being unreliable it is often considered).

 

[Rhiessan71]

Effectiveness is subjective.

Oh is it now?
Or is it only subjective when it doesn't fit your narrative?
I love it, I mean I really do.
Lidstrom's most overwhelming and most lauded attribute is his defensive play, yet THE second there is hard evidence that Bourque was even more effective at keeping the puck out of his own net than Lidstrom was, it's subjective?
JOKE!!!

In Football, 9 times out of 10 when a team only has to have their defense on the field for a 1/3 of the game as opposed to half the game. that team is going to win more games and have less points scored against them.
Bourque's puck control and possession game worked exactly the same way and why he WAS more effective over-all at preventing goals.
Whine about it, scream about it, deny it...I don't give a ****, those are the SUPPORTED facts!

If you ignore the dozen or more playoff series where Bourque was ineffective, then it paints a rosier picture of his overall career contributions.

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!
Go!

 

[Sentinel]

R71 and his Canadian bias is at full throttle. I swear, I've never seen anything like this!

I also want to point out that in 98 Bourque lost his all-star team a gold medal. In fact he didn't medal at all. While in 06 Lidstrom won his team a gold medal. And he was a better defenseman too.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Some comments about Lidstrom (vs Bourque)...

About Lidstrom having less competition

Let's not forget that while Lidstrom always had to compete with the very best defencemen in the world at the time, Bourque did not.
In Soviet there were two excellent defencemen, Fetisov and Kasatonov, who during Canada Cups had shown they were among the 1-6 or so best defencemen the world.
"Kasatonov??" some might react... Well, he truly was very good both defensively (often better than Fetisov) and offensively (sometimes even outscored Fetisov). We who lots of times saw him play in the 80s knows that.


Scoring finishes among defencemen

Scoring ability is of course just one aspect of being a great defenceman, but since it's being mentioned here (often to Bourque's advantage) I comment upon it.
I hope I got all the figures right.

Lidstrom led defencemen in scoring 4 times, Bourque 2 times.

Okey, we know Bourque had to compete against prime Paul Coffey, so we turn to top-2 finishes...

Lidstrom had 8 top-2 finishes, Bourque had 7.

Both had 11 top-3 finishes.

Bourque 16 top-5 finishes, Lidstrom 12.
Bourque 19 top-10, Lidstrom 15.
Bourque 22 top-20, Lidstrom 17.
Bourque 22 top-50, Lidstrom 20.

Lidstrom lost a whole season due to a lockout. It's hard to tell how that affect his longevity (some argue it made him last longer). The regular season before the lockout he finished only 22nd in defencemen scoring (12th in defencemen +/-), but his playoffs were much better.

Overall, they appear basically even career wise in regard to scoring.
Lidstrom had slightly less longevity, but on the other hand is European (went over later, was new to North American play) which might translate to a season or two.

I also think one might be a bit misled by looking at only the points scored, as defencemen in general scored more in the 80s.


Lidstrom's first NHL seasons ("before he rose to stardom")

Rookie season
In his rookie season, at age 22, Lidstrom's scoring finish among defencemen was as high as 9th, having 60 points. Bourque (age 20, North American) finished 5th in his rookie season, with 65 points.
Looking at +/- (which can be very deceptive), Lidstrom was 2nd best defenceman, while Bourque in his rookie season was 3rd.
Fairly equal it seems to me.

Seasons 2-4
Lidstrom then scored considerably fewer points during his next three seasons, with defenceman scoring finishes of 35th, 16th, 20th. "Two year younger" Bourque was 16th, 9th, 5th (not having to face the best Soviets, although that might only marginally have affected his finishes).
Regarding +/-, Lidstrom finished >50th, 2nd, 12th. Bourque finished 11th, 15th, 3rd.

Bourque's offensive stats here seem significantly better.

Lidstrom played on a team he didn't have to carry offensively, for example they had Paul Coffey on the team.

Looking at the playoffs, Lidstroms second season wasn't great. But in his third season he scored 5 pts in 7 games (Coffey had 7) and was +4, and in his fourth season Lidstrom scored 16 pts (Coffey had 18) and was +4.
Bourque had similar numbers in his second-fourth season (and also in his fifth-sixth when he age wise was Lidstrom's age).

So already in his third-fourth seasons, Lidstrom had become a good point scorer in the playoffs, as well as being solid +/- wise (again +/- in itself can be deceptive, but still).

All Star Team
Lidstrom wasn't an All Star Team selection (top-4 in the league) until his seventh season, while also getting votes in his fifth-sixth season (listed as 6th both seasons) and third season (8th).
Bourque was an All Star in each of his seven (and seventeen!) first seasons.
Bourque's AST finishes seem better than his scoring finishes (and +/- finishes), as he in his four first seasons never was top-4 in defencemen scoring, so apparently voters credited more than just good scoring and +/-. (I mention +/-, because while being unreliable it is often considered).

None of those scoring finishes means jack without context, namely the players they beat and were beaten by.
One list is NOTHING like the other!
Mentioning Coffey was a start but only the tip of the iceberg and everyone knows it!

 

[Rhiessan71]

R71 and his Canadian bias is at full throttle. I swear, I've never seen anything like this!

I also want to point out that in 98 Bourque lost his all-star team a gold medal. In fact he didn't medal at all. While in 06 Lidstrom won his team a gold medal. And he was a better defenseman too.

And you have a Canadian bias bias heh
Wanna have that conversation about the '92 Calder again?

As far as the '06 Olympics goes...a Swedish dman did win best in tournament honours, except his name was Kenny Jonsson

 

[Sentinel]

Calder is a minor accomplishment, often given to a novelty. You yourself downplayed it when talking about Makarov. It's a well established fact that voters did not like Euro defensemen.

Even Fetisov is often ranked above Bourque. In the second half of his career Bourque was far worse than Lidstrom when it mattered, in playoffs. Hell, Fetisov did more for his Wings in playoffs.

Lidstrom scored a goal in the Finals in OG. Bourque missed a shootout.