Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[CC Chiefs*]

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.

You can slice how ever you want! Scoring was up!

No look at Fuhr SC winning seasons:

1984 3.91 gaa
1985 3.87 gaa
1987 3.44 gaa
1988 3.43 gaa
1990 3.0 gaa this was Ranfords CS year

Please stop the goaltending in the 80's was horrible! Fuhr was one of the best and his number were horrible!

 

[BraveCanadian]

You can slice how ever you want! Scoring was up!

No look at Fuhr SC winning seasons:

1984 3.91 gaa
1985 3.87 gaa
1987 3.44 gaa
1988 3.43 gaa
1990 3.0 gaa this was Ranfords CS year

Please stop the goaltending in the 80's was horrible! Fuhr was one of the best and his number were horrible!

Yes, I am converted.

Goalies were great in the early days of hockey up until expansion.. then for some reason they all became terrible for 10 years but luckily they all suddenly improved again.

Because we know that no goalies who played in the 80s ever improved their pure statistics as they played in the 90s..

Are you serious?

 

[Rhiessan71]

You can slice how ever you want! Scoring was up!

No look at Fuhr SC winning seasons:

1984 3.91 gaa
1985 3.87 gaa
1987 3.44 gaa
1988 3.43 gaa
1990 3.0 gaa this was Ranfords CS year

Please stop the goaltending in the 80's was horrible! Fuhr was one of the best and his number were horrible!

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that goaltending was the same, it was just the overall change in teams' to put more emphasis on defense along with goalie equipment upgrades that brought scoring down.
If that is indeed what you're saying, I agree.
If you're saying something else, I'll be honest and say I'm a lil confused to exactly what your point is.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The present form of the sport took shape in the professional leagues, the NHL and the Pacific Coast League. Key innovations were 3 20-minute periods (1910), 6 players (1911), and a gradual relaxation of the stricture against the forward pass: allowed between blue lines (1918), within any of the 3 zones (1929-30), and across blue lines (1930-31). The red line was added in 1943-44. The result was a faster game and more team play. this is from http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003794

Lets acknowledge that he was in the NHL at the rigth time and other dmen where doing the same.

I'm not saying that he wasn't the best Dman of his era but it was an eratic era and Lidstrom and Bourque are better players playing in a much better NHL for a longer period of time IMO and having the same imapct on their teams as shore did.

Honestly, the reason we all rank Harvey over Bourque is that anyone who saw both of them play swear up and down that Harvey was better. There are a couple of posters on this board who saw Harvey play live. There is also video of him posted in one of the stickies.

And from accounts I've read, there were quite a few people who saw both Shore and Harvey and there was always a debate as to which was better.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that goaltending was the same, it was just the overall change in teams' to put more emphasis on defense along with goalie equipment upgrades that brought scoring down.
If that is indeed what you're saying, I agree.
If you're saying something else, I'll be honest and say I'm a lil confused to exactly what your point is.

No what I'm saying is the poster scoring was inflated in the 80's. And i said a HHOF goalies from the 80 s has a lifetime gaa of 3.83 proving that! Nothing more nothing less!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

I remember Bourque getting caught out of position more too. But honestly, how much of it was due to team style of play and era?

Teams: Boston counted on Bourque to lead them offensively, while Lidstrom was able to sit back in Detroit's puck possession-system.

Era: Defensemen in the 80s and early 90s rushed the puck much more often than in the Dead Puck era and beyond.

I think Lidstrom's offensive numbers are depressed by era and team style, but I think he was able to play more "mistake free" hockey for the same reasons.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No what I'm saying is the poster scoring was inflated in the 80's. And i said a HHOF goalies from the 80 s has a lifetime gaa of 3.83 proving that! Nothing more nothing less!

So pertaining to this thread, you are saying that Bourque's numbers are inflated then OR could we say that the strength of the teams Lidstrom played for compared to Bourque's teams be used to offset each other

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Yes, I am converted.

Goalies were great in the early days of hockey up until expansion.. then for some reason they all became terrible for 10 years but luckily they all suddenly improved again.

Because we know that no goalies who played in the 80s ever improved their pure statistics as they played in the 90s..

Are you serious?

Grant Fuhrs best 2 years in the were less than stellar.

98 2.53 gaa
99 2.44 gaa

At the same time Osgood was:

98 2.12 gaa
99 2.35 gaa

And hasek was:

98 2.09 gaa
99 1.87 gaa

So IMO if it quacks like a duck it might be a duck!

 

[CC Chiefs*]

So pertaining to this thread, you are saying that Bourque's numbers are inflated then OR could we say that the strength of the teams Lidstrom played for compared to Bourque's teams be used to offset each other

I'm saying defense wasn't played in the 80's and offensive numbers were inflated then.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Grant Fuhrs best 2 years in the were less than stellar.

98 2.53 gaa
99 2.44 gaa

At the same time Osgood was:

98 2.12 gaa
99 2.35 gaa

And hasek was:

98 2.09 gaa
99 1.87 gaa

So IMO if it quacks like a duck it might be a duck!

First, look at his age by the time 98 and 99 were rolling around..

Second look at the fact that as his career was winding down, and he was well past his prime, that Fuhr was putting up numbers pretty much a whole goal per game better than his average and then do the math.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm saying defense wasn't played in the 80's and offensive numbers were inflated then.

We all agree.

How does that make Grant Fuhr a bad goalie?

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Also Lidstrom became a triple gold winner in 2006. I know this doesn't really matter.

 

[finchster]

First, look at his age by the time 98 and 99 were rolling around..

Second look at the fact that as his career was winding down, and he was well past his prime, that Fuhr was putting up numbers pretty much a whole goal per game better than his average and then do the math.

Bingo, I guess it is easy to take Grant Fuhr and make a statement that all goalies were bad in the 1980's considering he was well past his prime.

It would be harder to use guys like Roy or Vanbiesbrouck who played in the 1980's and saw their stat lines improve in the 90's.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

We all agree.

How does that make Grant Fuhr a bad goalie?

It doesn't. It means goal scoring was up in the 80's and Bourques score may have been inflated in the 80's.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Let's let Bourque and Lidstrom have their thread, and if you'd like to discuss Grant Fuhr, he can have his own thread. We aren't running out of threads.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Bingo, I guess it is easy to take Grant Fuhr and make a statement that all goalies were bad in the 1980's considering he was well past his prime.

It would be harder to use guys like Roy or Vanbiesbrouck who played in the 1980's and saw their stat lines improve in the 90's.

Well past his prime in the 80's? WTF are you talking about? His first season in the NHL was 81-82, some would say he was in his prime in the 80's.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Let's let Bourque and Lidstrom have their thread, and if you'd like to discuss Grant Fuhr, he can have his own thread. We aren't running out of threads.

Okay the point was scoring was up in 80's and both Bourque and Fuhr were part of the 80's and Lidstrom wasn't.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Grant Fuhrs best 2 years in the were less than stellar.

98 2.53 gaa
99 2.44 gaa

At the same time Osgood was:

98 2.12 gaa
99 2.35 gaa

And hasek was:

98 2.09 gaa
99 1.87 gaa

So IMO if it quacks like a duck it might be a duck!

Kind of a tough one to use honestly.
I mean you are talking about a 38ish year old Fuhr vs a 33ish year old Hasek and a 26ish year old Osgood.


Going on my own personal experience, I have to say that greatly improved goalie equipment and the overall philosophy change of goaltending had more to do with lowering league scoring than teams simply paying more attention to defnese.

I was playing goal in Junior C and a bit of B in the mid 80's.
First off the equipment I used then (all leather cooper's, paper thin shoulder and chest protectors, solid sherwood sticks that weighed a ton, goalie skates that felt lead weighted heh ) compared to even the stuff I was using in the early 90's was night and day.
The equipment was not only bigger but it offered twice the protection with literally half the weight. More importantly, it didn't retain water like a sponge.

The philosophy changes were just as big. You were taught up till that point to play a stand up, reflex style.
The butterfly was something you reserved for emergencies like when you absolutely knew there was a shot coming when you were 100% screened.
In fact, going down was actually viewed as a bad thing and would come with the negative flopper label.

That was all starting to change in the mid 80's as the butterfly started to become the catch all, going down was no longer a negative and playing the %'s was starting to win out over pure reflexs.

Took me years to adjust and even then I was more like Brodeur's hybrid style as opposed to Roy's pure butterfly.
Either way, I was most definitely a better goalie in my 20's than I was in teens, still not good enough to get past Junior b though


Either way, 600 more points in 200 more games can hardly be attributed to "weaker" goaltending, not by a long shot.

 

[finchster]

Well past his prime in the 80's? WTF are you talking about? His first season in the NHL was 81-82, some would say he was in his prime in the 80's.

I was referring to your arbitrary comparison of Fuhr at the age 36 to the greatest goaltender I ever saw play in his prime and Osgood who played on a better defensive team. Even if Bourque played in a more offensive era, he still scored more points than Lidstrom when they played at the same time. Bourque in this period was playing on worse teams (except one year in Colorado) and slightly past his prime.

 

[seventieslord]

Honestly, the reason we all rank Harvey over Bourque is that anyone who saw both of them play swear up and down that Harvey was better. There are a couple of posters on this board who saw Harvey play live. There is also video of him posted in one of the stickies.

And from accounts I've read, there were quite a few people who saw both Shore and Harvey and there was always a debate as to which was better.

Agree; Harvey is an absolute pleasure to watch. Aside from Orr, I've never seen a defenseman who could control a game like he can.

After seeing a game with Beliveau and Harvey, it is very difficult for me to rate Beliveau ahead of Harvey.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

I was referring to your arbitrary comparison of Fuhr at the age 36 to the greatest goaltender I ever saw play in his prime and Osgood who played on a better defensive team. Even if Bourque played in a more offensive era, he still scored more points than Lidstrom when they played at the same time. Bourque in this period was playing on worse teams (except one year in Colorado) and slightly past his prime.

Okay at post the first lockout is when the defense really clamped down here is their stats:

Bourque 348 points
Lidstrom 384 points

Now before jump you on the Bourque was old thing. Here are their last 3 years:

Bourque 168 points
Lidstrom 178 points

 

[tarheelhockey]

Even if Bourque played in a more offensive era, he still scored more points than Lidstrom when they played at the same time. Bourque in this period was playing on worse teams (except one year in Colorado) and slightly past his prime.

I think it says a lot that a 40-year-old Bourque walked onto a good Colorado team during the height of Dead Puck and put up 73 points in 94 games.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay at post the first lockout is when the defense really clamped down here is their stats:

Bourque 348 points
Lidstrom 384 points

Now before jump you on the Bourque was old thing. Here are their last 3 years:

Bourque 168 points
Lidstrom 178 points

Of course Bourque putting in his last 3 years at the height of the dead puck era and playing on a vastly inferior team 2 out of those 3 years had nothing to do with it.
A mere 10 points doesn't go very far against that imo.

Hell, in 98/99 Bourque at 39 had exactly the same points as Lidstrom at 29 with 57 each.
That even more telling imo.

 

[redbull]

Bourque was the better player IMO. Better offensively, more physical, elevated the play of teammates, better on the PP, solid all around.

Bourque was a dominant player for a long time.

I don't want to downplay Lidstrom who's been a top defenseman for a very long time. But Lidstrom is a very quiet player compared to Bourque. Lidstrom's value is AS MUCH IN what you don't see/measure as in what you do. Lidstrom played a very solid "under the radar" for a large part of his years as well, always on good teams too.

I choose Bourque....but good discussion, for sure.

 

[finchster]

Okay at post the first lockout is when the defense really clamped down here is their stats:

Bourque 348 points
Lidstrom 384 points

Now before jump you on the Bourque was old thing. Here are their last 3 years:

Bourque 168 points
Lidstrom 178 points

Okay at post the first lockout is when the defense really clamped down here is their stats:

Bourque 348 points
Lidstrom 384 points

Now before jump you on the Bourque was old thing. Here are their last 3 years:

Bourque 168 points
Lidstrom 178 points

Lidstrom actually scored 201 points in Bourque's last three years and Bourque had 168 points.

Lidstrom
57
73
71
201

Bourque
57
52
59
168

33 of the 36 point difference was made up in Bourque's final three years when Lidstrom was 28-29-30 and Bourque was 38-39-40. If you want to prove Lidstrom was better offensively between 28-30 than Bourque was 38-40 then I will give you that

In the previous three years after the lock out Lidstrom scored 3 more points than Bourque but played 14 more games. For the first three years they were equal but Bourque having a slightly higher ppg and Bourque was 35-37 playing on a bad team.