Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[Reds4Life]

I'd take Lidstrom by a razor thin margin. His style of play allowed Detroit to be one of the best teams in the league for quite some time. Bourque's style may produce more points and is more flashy, but ultimately, less effective.
Playoff success is what makes the difference for me.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Bourque. Ugh, I feel so dirty

 

[finchster]

I'd take Lidstrom by a razor thin margin. His style of play allowed Detroit to be one of the best teams in the league for quite some time. Bourque's style may produce more points and is more flashy, but ultimately, less effective.
Playoff success is what makes the difference for me.

You do realize that winning Stanley Cups is a team effort right? At the time when Bourque hit his prime in the late 80's early 90's Bourque and Neely carried Bruins teams that were truly awful. Just look at the 1990 team that went to the finals and the scoring leaders on that team. Craig Janey was the ultimate floater who didn’t care for anything but putting points up. Carpenter fluked 50 goals early in his career, after that season 27 (the season after) was the most he scored. Andy Brickley was injured his whole career and Bob Sweeney was getting first and second line minutes when he probably would have been a third and fourth liner on a good team.

Don’t you think using team achievements to separate the two is a little short sighted when you consider the gulf in talent between the two teams? If you put Bourque on Detroit, is his style of play going to cause Detroit to win fewer cups? Only a fool would think so

 

[Reds4Life]

You do realize that winning Stanley Cups is a team effort right? At the time when Bourque hit his prime in the late 80's early 90's Bourque and Neely carried Bruins teams that were truly awful. Just look at the 1990 team that went to the finals and the scoring leaders on that team. Craig Janey was the ultimate floater who didn’t care for anything but putting points up. Carpenter fluked 50 goals early in his career, after that season 27 (the season after) was the most he scored. Andy Brickley was injured his whole career and Bob Sweeney was getting first and second line minutes when he probably would have been a third and fourth liner on a good team.

Don’t you think using team achievements to separate the two is a little short sighted when you consider the gulf in talent between the two teams? If you put Bourque on Detroit, is his style of play going to cause Detroit to win fewer cups? Only a fool would think so

I did not say Bourque was bad playoff player or anything like that. Just that Lidstrom was more successful (not just Cups, Conn Smythe too). But, Bourque has far more penalty minutes in less games than Lidstrom. When players are this close in terms of skill/achievements, the minor things become more important.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I did not say Bourque was bad playoff player or anything like that. Just that Lidstrom was more successful (not just Cups, Conn Smythe too). But, Bourque has far more penalty minutes in less games than Lidstrom. When players are this close in terms of skill/achievements, the minor things become more important.

While it's close, it's not that close.
Granted, I give the edge to Lidstrom defensively but the offensive gap is like kinda huge eh, 600 more points in only 200 more games, i mean c'mon.
Not to mention losing the Hart by a single vote against what was prolly the deepest class of players in the history of the NHL, that alone speaks volumes.

As far as pims go, Bourque was obviously a much more physical player and pims are going to happen.

Playing on "El cheapo" Harry Sinden's Bruins all those years shouldn't be a punishment either.

 

[jkrx]

However you would see Bourque caught out of position more often than you would with Lidström. I would pick Lidström on my team before Bourque as I value defense from an offensive D rather than what offense he brings.

PS. No, Im not saying Bourque was garbage at defense (quite the opposite) but Lidström is/was better.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

However you would see Bourque caught out of position more often than you would with Lidström.

Other than your own remembrances, do you have any evidence to back this up? I don't have evidence to the contrary, but I don't believe it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

However you would see Bourque caught out of position more often than you would with Lidström. I would pick Lidström on my team before Bourque as I value defense from an offensive D rather than what offense he brings.

PS. No, Im not saying Bourque was garbage at defense (quite the opposite) but Lidström is/was better.

Hey, I already agreed that I would give the defensive edge to Lidstrom but only because he is faster than Bourque but by NO means is that edge very wide.
It sure as hell isn't based on positioning, that's ridiculous, it's not like Ray was a rushing dman and would get caught deep.
He racked up the majority of his points 5-10 feet inside the blueline for pete's sake heh.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

While it's close, it's not that close.
Granted, I give the edge to Lidstrom defensively but the offensive gap is like kinda huge eh, 600 more points in only 200 more games, i mean c'mon.
Not to mention losing the Hart by a single vote against what was prolly the deepest class of players in the history of the NHL, that alone speaks volumes.

As far as pims go, Bourque was obviously a much more physical player and pims are going to happen.

Playing on "El cheapo" Harry Sinden's Bruins all those years shouldn't be a punishment either.

Lidstrom 6 Norris trophies.
Bourque 5 Norris trophies.

Lidstrom 11 allstar selections
Bourque 12 allstar selections

Lidstrom 1 CS
Bourque 0 CS

WOW very close. I'm going to say they were both great players and leave it at that. And I hate these superstar comparisons.

 

[unknown33]

It's not just his Harts; Shore was the best defenseman in the league at least 8 times as demonstrated by all-star voting.

Either Shore faced much easier competition on D than Bourque or his contemporaries are underrated on here

HOH Top 100

Shore

Clancy #51
Clapper #58

Bourque

Coffey #46
Chelios #41
MacInnis #64
Leetch #100
Stevens #92

Potvin * #18
Robinson * #31
Lidstrom * #17

* past/pre prime

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom 6 Norris trophies.
Bourque 5 Norris trophies.

Level of competition has to be a factor when judging these two on Norris wins though.
Going up against Pronger, Chara and Niedermayer is a far cry from going up against Chelios, Coffey, Stevens and Leetch.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Level of competition has to be a factor when judging these two on Norris wins though.
Going up against Pronger, Chara and Niedermayer is a far cry from going up against Chelios, Coffey, Stevens and Leetch.

I'd have to say that these 3 were much better defensive defensemen then the 2 of the other 4 you listed.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I'd have to say that these 3 were much better defensive defensemen then the 2 of the other 4 you listed.

Maybe, but Bourque played so long, he also faced guys like Robinson, Potvin, M.Howe, Salming and Park. I think along with the 5 Norris wins he has a ton of 2nd place finishes. IMO he would have been a better choice than a few of the guys he lost out to in the 80's.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Maybe, but Bourque played so long, he also faced guys like Robinson, Potvin, M.Howe, Salming and Park. I think along with the 5 Norris wins he has a ton of 2nd place finishes. IMO he would have been a better choice than a few of the guys he lost out to in the 80's.

Robinson was 9 years removed from winning a Norris and was on the down hill side of his career when Bourque won his 1st. And Potvin was 7 years removed. And other 3 never won. Nick finished 2nd in many times also.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Robinson was 9 years removed from winning a Norris and was on the down hill side of his career when Bourque won his 1st. And Potvin was 7 years removed. And other 3 never won. Nick finished 2nd in many times also.

Bourque was 2nd to Robinson in 1980.

 

[finchster]

Lidstrom 6 Norris trophies.
Bourque 5 Norris trophies.

Lidstrom 11 allstar selections
Bourque 12 allstar selections

Lidstrom 1 CS
Bourque 0 CS

WOW very close. I'm going to say they were both great players and leave it at that. And I hate these superstar comparisons.

Ummmmm I am pretty sure you mean

Lidstrom 11 all star selections (9 first team 2 second team)
Bourque 19 all star selections (13 first team, 6 second team)

In that respect, not close

 

[Reds4Life]

While it's close, it's not that close.
Granted, I give the edge to Lidstrom defensively but the offensive gap is like kinda huge eh, 600 more points in only 200 more games, i mean c'mon.
Not to mention losing the Hart by a single vote against what was prolly the deepest class of players in the history of the NHL, that alone speaks volumes.

As far as pims go, Bourque was obviously a much more physical player and pims are going to happen.

Playing on "El cheapo" Harry Sinden's Bruins all those years shouldn't be a punishment either.

Bourque may have been slightly better offensively, but he has so many points because he played against atrocious goalies of the 80's. ( I mean, watch some game from the NHL of the 80's. Looks like different game. Atrocious defensive systems and goaltending)
Hart trophy is incredibly biased, favours forwards almost all the time, not a very good indicator.
As for competition, Bourque may have played against some big name defensemen, but overall there is much more talent now. Bigger, better and faster players. Better coaching system, conditioning, everything.

For me, Bourque is better offensively, Lidstrom defensively. Very close. Lidstrom has had better playoffs, that makes him very slightly better in my book.

Not to mention there was apparent bias towards European players not that long ago.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Robinson was 9 years removed from winning a Norris and was on the down hill side of his career when Bourque won his 1st. And Potvin was 7 years removed. And other 3 never won. Nick finished 2nd in many times also.

I would hardly call Bigbird's 85/86 season as being on the down side of his career.
In fact it wasn't till his injury riddled 87/88 season that he truly began to decline. He just wasn't the same after that year.

Bourque may have been slightly better offensively, but he has so many points because he played against atrocious goalies of the 80's. ( I mean, watch some game from the NHL of the 80's. Looks like different game. Atrocious defensive systems and goaltending)
Hart trophy is incredibly biased, favours forwards almost all the time, not a very good indicator.
As for competition, Bourque may have played against some big name defensemen, but overall there is much more talent now. Bigger, better and faster players. Better coaching system, conditioning, everything.

For me, Bourque is better offensively, Lidstrom defensively. Very close. Lidstrom has had better playoffs, that makes him very slightly better in my book.

Not to mention there was apparent bias towards European players not that long ago.

Dude, you're not seriously going to tell me that the "80's umbrella" accounts for 600 more points in 200 less games.
Especially since he was still putting up 80 and 90 point seasons well into the 90's and his mid 30's.
Saying Bourque was "slightly better" offensively is like saying Mario was slightly better than Jagr.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Ummmmm I am pretty sure you mean

Lidstrom 11 all star selections (9 first team 2 second team)
Bourque 19 all star selections (13 first team, 6 second team)

In that respect, not close

According to what I read it was 11 1st teams and 2 2nd teams.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Bourque may have been slightly better offensively, but he has so many points because he played against atrocious goalies of the 80's. ( I mean, watch some game from the NHL of the 80's. Looks like different game. Atrocious defensive systems and goaltending)
Hart trophy is incredibly biased, favours forwards almost all the time, not a very good indicator.
As for competition, Bourque may have played against some big name defensemen, but overall there is much more talent now. Bigger, better and faster players. Better coaching system, conditioning, everything.

For me, Bourque is better offensively, Lidstrom defensively. Very close. Lidstrom has had better playoffs, that makes him very slightly better in my book.

Not to mention there was apparent bias towards European players not that long ago.

Grant Fuhr is a HHOF goalie with lifetime 3.38 gaa and a .887 save pct. with only 25 career SO.

 

[jkrx]

Other than your own remembrances, do you have any evidence to back this up? I don't have evidence to the contrary, but I don't believe it.

This is what I saw and just to point out again.

PS. No, Im not saying Bourque was garbage at defense (quite the opposite) but Lidström is/was better.

In my opinion, Lidström positioning skills is probably second to none. My question is though. How can Lidström not have a Lady Byng? Not thats its an important trophy but he is probably the biggest gentleman on the ice too without being too squishy.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Grant Fuhr is a HHOF goalie with lifetime 3.38 gaa and a .887 save pct. with only 25 career SO.

You forgot the part about 400 wins and 5 stanley cups.

Numbers don't tell the whole game. He posted the best "numbers" of his career far after his prime because the game evolved into a defense first philosophy from an attacking one.

If he had started in '95 for example I can guarantee you he'd have numbers up there with the Brodeurs and Haseks etc.

He was exceptionally athletic for his time.. the game was just focused differently then.

 

[CanadianHockey]

In my opinion, Lidström positioning skills is probably second to none. My question is though. How can Lidström not have a Lady Byng? Not thats its an important trophy but he is probably the biggest gentleman on the ice too without being too squishy.

Because Datsyuk keeps winning the Byng!

I'll take Bourque over Lidstrom. Both are great players, though.

And at the Swedish Chef!

 

[tarheelhockey]

I appreciate Lidstrom's quiet excellence, but the bottom line is that Bourque was more dominant and a bigger star in his heyday.

 

[finchster]

According to what I read it was 11 1st teams and 2 2nd teams.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bourqra01.html

I guess you stand corrected

Bourque may have been slightly better offensively, but he has so many points because he played against atrocious goalies of the 80's. ( I mean, watch some game from the NHL of the 80's. Looks like different game. Atrocious defensive systems and goaltending)

When Bourque and Lidstrom were playing in the league at the same time (1991-92 to 2000-01) Bourque scored 645 points to Lidstrom's 567. Even if Bourque racked up points in a higher scoring era, he would have out pointed Lidstrom in any era by a good margin. One thing Bourque had was his deadly accurate shot from anywhere on the ice. Many of the Bruins goals invovled getting the puck to Bourque and him placing a shot and the scrubs he played with going for a garbage goal. He was taking over 300 shots a season even leading the NHL in shots a few times. I don't think the margin in offense is that wide, but it is certainly larger than the defensive gap between the two.

Hart trophy is incredibly biased, favours forwards almost all the time, not a very good indicator.

So when a defenseman is nominated and nearly wins it minus the horrible journalists in Edmonton, shouldn't that mean more?

As for competition, Bourque may have played against some big name defensemen, but overall there is much more talent now. Bigger, better and faster players. Better coaching system, conditioning, everything.

Why does that matter? top athletes were still top athletes in the 1980's. They were all on a level playing field. It wasn't necessarily easier to dominate just because there was less training because everyone had less training.

At age 38 (98-99) Bourque was playing 29:20 minutes a night, and Lidstrom at 38, 24:49. Detroit was obviously a better team so Lidstrom wouldn't have to play as much, but it illustrates that the difference in training between the 80's, 90's and now isn't as large as you paint it. If it was then Bourque wouldn't have been able to keep his fittness and stamina levels to the same as the 'better trained' players of the 90's and now.

In 10 years the coaching systems that Lidstrom played under will be obsolete and ineffective, that doesn't necessarily mean these systems are 'better' just more relevant to the era and the players in the league.

Not to mention there was apparent bias towards European players not that long ago.

Not to nit pick because English isn't your first language I assume, but I you mean a bias against European players. Which I do not buy