Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[tarheelhockey]

Here's an interesting comparison.

Ray Bourque 1995-96
Turned 35 halfway through the season
League average GPG was 6.29, following a lockout
Bruins were 5th in their conference, 2nd in the division
Played 80 games, more or less injury free
Eliminated after 5 playoff games
Team captain

Nicklas Lidstrom 2005-2006
Turned 35 halfway through the season
League average GPG was 6.17, following a lockout
Wings won the conference and division in a cakewalk
Played 80 games, more or less injury free
Eliminated after 6 playoff games
Named captain at the end of the season (post-Yzerman retirement)

With the exception of the Wings being a powerhouse compared to the Bruins simply being a good team, the comparison is almost exact -- age, health, leaguewide offense, and leadership role. I don't think there's a closer comparison at any point in their careers.

And the numbers... *drum roll please*

Bourque: 20-62-82, 58 PIM
Lidstrom: 16-64-80, 50 PIM

Incredibly close.

 

[Reds4Life]

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.

Which is why I think Ray was slightly better than Lidstrom offensively. Let's say Bourque is a PPG defenseman (almost), Lidstrom is 0.75 PPG, when you adjust for the era differences, how big is the gap? For the sake of the argument, let's assume it is 0.9 to 0.75 PPG.
Lidstrom is slightly better defensively and takes less penalties. Lidstrom also plays more games per season (on average). We can say 77 games for Ray, 82 for Nick. Then we get this:

Bourque - 69 points a season
Lidstrom - 61 points a season

Minor difference that Lidstrom makes up for with less penatly minutes and slightly better defense.

Also, Bourque's PPG goes down more than Lidstrom's (Nicks production is virtually the same in RS and playoffs) in the playoffs.

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

It is a great feat for Ray, he should have won that year. But who knows what would happen if Lidstrom played that year too. I am not saying he would have won, but you never know. I just believe Hart trophy is not a good indicator when comparing players that are this close.

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.

Of course it was easier to dominate. In any and all sports. Less training for everyone - the talent level is more important/dominant.

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.

Both of them can easily play half the game when needed, I am not trying to belittle either player. Both had incredible stamina.

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.

No doubt that average players will keep getting better and better, thus it will be harder for star players to dominate. That happens in all sports, not just hockey.

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

Yes, I mixed those two up, sorry for that.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Here's an interesting comparison.

Ray Bourque 1995-96
Turned 35 halfway through the season
League average GPG was 6.29, following a lockout
Bruins were 5th in their conference, 2nd in the division
Played 80 games, more or less injury free
Eliminated after 5 playoff games
Team captain

Nicklas Lidstrom 2005-2006
Turned 35 halfway through the season
League average GPG was 6.17, following a lockout
Wings won the conference and division in a cakewalk
Played 80 games, more or less injury free
Eliminated after 6 playoff games
Named captain at the end of the season (post-Yzerman retirement)

With the exception of the Wings being a powerhouse compared to the Bruins simply being a good team, the comparison is almost exact -- age, health, leaguewide offense, and leadership role. I don't think there's a closer comparison at any point in their careers.

And the numbers... *drum roll please*

Bourque: 20-62-82, 58 PIM
Lidstrom: 16-64-80, 50 PIM

Incredibly close.

Pretty good comparison, however, even saying "Wings being a powerhouse compared to the Bruins simply being a good team" is even a bit understated, we're talking a 126 point team vs a 91 point team.
Also, Bourque was second in team scoring, Lidstrom 4th.

 

[finchster]

Of course it was easier to dominate. In any and all sports. Less training for everyone - the talent level is more important/dominant.

I don't buy that line of thinking, just think about the last 30 years in sports or even 20. If it were true it is harder to dominate any or all sports we would see fewer dominating and great performances.

Hockey,
Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, Lidstrom

Tiger Woods

Ken Griffey Jr before injuries was the most complete baseball player of all time and many believed he could be the best of all time had it not been for injuries.

Michael Phelps 8 gold medals

Usain Bolt dominates the field

Michael Jordan, perhaps Kobe Bryant

Zidane in soccer

and the list goes on

If it were harder to dominant any and all sports, then why have we seen in our life times the most dominating performances in sport? The easy answer is of course drugs . Speed and endurance might improve, but truly great athletes have skills and intelligence that cannot be taught

 

[Rhiessan71]

Which is why I think Ray was slightly better than Lidstrom offensively. Let's say Bourque is a PPG defenseman (almost), Lidstrom is 0.75 PPG, when you adjust for the era differences, how big is the gap? For the sake of the argument, let's assume it is 0.9 to 0.75 PPG.
Lidstrom is slightly better defensively and takes less penalties. Lidstrom also plays more games per season (on average). We can say 77 games for Ray, 82 for Nick. Then we get this:

Bourque - 69 points a season
Lidstrom - 61 points a season

You can't even begin to reduce Bourque's points by a flat % for his entire career. That's ridiculous and makes no sense at all.
Especially since Lisdtrom was playing during half of Bourque's career and Bourque's 3rd and 4th best season totals came well after the mid 80's free wheeling was in check.

...and what about adjusting Lidstrom's stats for having the advantage of playing on vastly superior teams compared to Bourque's?

Don't start nitpicking Bourque's points without expecting Lidstrom's to be as well.

Bourque's extra points in the early/mid 80's vs Lidstrom's extra points from superior teams screams as a wash to me and we're right back to 600 more points in 200 more games and again a lot more than just "slightly".

 

[Reds4Life]

If it were harder to dominant any and all sports, then why have we seen in our life times the most dominating performances in sport? The easy answer is of course drugs . Speed and endurance might improve, but truly great athletes have skills and intelligence that cannot be taught

That is exactly my point. Average players get better, that alone makes it harder to dominate. As for the sports stars you mentioned, if you look at football (soccer), there is no Maradonna today, sure there is elite group of guys, but they do not dominate the way Maradonna could. It is not possible.

You can't even begin to reduce Bourque's points by a flat % for his entire career. That's ridiculous and makes no sense at all.
Especially since Lisdtrom was playing during half of Bourque's career and Bourque's 3rd and 4th best season totals came well after the mid 80's free wheeling was in check.

...and what about adjusting Lidstrom's stats for having the advantage of playing on vastly superior teams compared to Bourque's?

Don't start nitpicking Bourque's points without expecting Lidstrom's to be as well.

Bourque's extra points in the early/mid 80's vs Lidstrom's extra points from superior teams screams as a wash to me and we're right back to 600 more points in 200 more games and again a lot more than just "slightly".

At least I tried to adjust the numbers, you just say 600 more points in 200 more games. What does that mean over a season? Bourque 80 points, Lidstrom 60? Don't be ridiculous.
And Lidstrom's superior teams? If they did not win the Cups, who knows if Steve Y would still be known as The Captain etc. It's not like they had no competition. If Bruins actually won a Cup, it would be a team of heroes, not **** + Neely and Bourque. That is the difference.
Playing against goalies that can barely stop a beachball is far greater advantage.

 

[finchster]

That is exactly my point. Average players get better, that alone makes it harder to dominate. As for the sports stars you mentioned, if you look at football (soccer), there is no Maradonna today, sure there is elite group of guys, but they do not dominate the way Maradonna could. It is not possible.

Zinedine Zidane was dominating in a different way from Maradona and that was very recently he played

 

[Reds4Life]

Zinedine Zidane was dominating in a different way from Maradona and that was very recently he played

That is not correct. While Zidane was always great player, the best in the World in his prime, he still did not come close to Maradonna/Pele level of dominance despite the fact that he might as well be a superior player when it comes to speed, fitness, technique, stamina. Simply because he faced much better players.

(for example Pele could be seen dribbling 3 people inside the keeper area before he scored. Not possible during Zidane's time.
Team Argentina was nothing special compared to other rivals, but Maradonna was so dominant, he brought the whole team on his back to a Championship; today, it is not possible for one player to have such an impact, because the gap between average star and superstar is much smaller)

 

[BleuBlancRougeFTW]

Im from Quebec, I love Ray Bourque but I would take Lidstrom because this guy is a true winner, not saying Bourque isnt a winner but his achievements arent as impressive.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

You can't even begin to reduce Bourque's points by a flat % for his entire career. That's ridiculous and makes no sense at all.
Especially since Lisdtrom was playing during half of Bourque's career and Bourque's 3rd and 4th best season totals came well after the mid 80's free wheeling was in check.

...and what about adjusting Lidstrom's stats for having the advantage of playing on vastly superior teams compared to Bourque's?

Don't start nitpicking Bourque's points without expecting Lidstrom's to be as well.

Bourque's extra points in the early/mid 80's vs Lidstrom's extra points from superior teams screams as a wash to me and we're right back to 600 more points in 200 more games and again a lot more than just "slightly".

As I said in my 1st post I hate these superstar vs superstar debates. They both were VERY good and it comes down to personal views. The old he said, she said stuff.

And for the record Lidstrom would probably have had more 2-3 Norris Trophies if wasn't for european block on this award.

 

[Rhiessan71]

At least I tried to adjust the numbers, you just say 600 more points in 200 less games.

You only attempted to adjust Bourque's numbers though and what's worse is you tried to apply that adjustment over the same years that Lidstrom was playing too. That's ridiculous.

What does that mean over a season? Bourque 80 points, Lidstrom 60? Don't be ridiculous.

Yeah actually, that is EXACTLYwhat it means and how it was!
Look EVEN if you were to reduce his point totals for every year with an '80 in it by 10%, he is still producing at .95 ppg. Even doing the full 11 years is too much though as scoring was already well on it's way down long before the end of the 80's but I'll do it anyway just to appease you and show how little it actually affects things.
11 years in the 80's, 79/80-89/90
795GP 840 points (10% reduction is 756 points)
So we would then only be looking at 520 more points in 200 more games. Still not sure how that is only "slightly" better.
Bourque was also better than a point per game long into the 90's to boot.

Tell you what, I'll even take off a full 13%, 200 freaking points off of Bourque's total and we're still looking at 400 more points in 200 more games! Like c'mon eh!

And Lidstrom's superior teams? If they did not win the Cups, who knows if Steve Y would still be known as The Captain etc. It's not like they had no competition. If Bruins actually won a Cup, it would be a team of heroes, not **** + Neely and Bourque. That is the difference.

Not even sure what point you're trying to make here but if you're going to adjust Bourque's points for era, I'm going to damned well adjust Lidstrom's for his vastly superior teams.

Playing against goalies that can barely stop a beachball is far greater advantage.

C'mon dude, it's not like we're talking about every game being a 9-7 score, far from it. On top of it you're trying to take something that really only affected about a 1/4 of his career, yet you want to apply that for the entirety...again, ridiculous.

And for the record Lidstrom would probably have had more 2-3 Norris Trophies if wasn't for european block on this award.

Euro block? That's absurd!
Look dude, just find one euro dman before Lidstrom that deserved more serious consideration.
Only one even remotely registers in my mind and that's Salming and he did get some serious consideration through out the 70's and early 80's but if you honestly think he deserved a Norris over Orr, Potvin or Robinson, I would have to call shenanigans and prolly tell you to look into that crack addiction.

Now, had Fetisov or Kasatonov actually played in the NHL during their primes, there's a very good chance and I have lil doubt myself that a couple Norris' would of went their way.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

You only attempted to adjust Bourque's numbers though and what's worse is you tried to apply that adjustment over the same years that Lidstrom was playing too. That's ridiculous.



Yeah actually, that is what it means and how it was!
Look EVEN if you were to reduce his point totals for every year with an '80 in it by 10%, he is still producing at .95 ppg. Even doing the full 11 years is too much though as scoring was already well on it's way down long before the end of the 80's but I'll do it anyway just to appease you and show how little it actually affects things.
11 years in the 80's, 79/80-89/90
795GP 840 points (10% reduction is 756 points)
So we would then only be looking at 520 more points in 200 more games. Still not sure how that is only "slightly" better.
Bourque was also better than a point per game long into the 90's to boot.




Not even sure what point you're trying to make here but if you're going to adjust Bourque's points for era, I'm going to damned well adjust Lidstrom's for his vastly superior teams.



C'mon dude, it's not like we're talking about every game being a 9-7 score, far from it. On top of it you're trying to take something that really only affected about a 1/4 of his career, yet you want to apply that for the entirety...again, ridiculous.



Euro block? That's absurd!
Look dude, just find one euro dman before Lidstrom that deserved more serious consideration.
Only one even remotely registers in my mind and that's Salming and he did get some serious consideration through out the 70's and early 80's but if you honestly think he deserved a Norris over Orr, Potvin or Robinson, I would have to call shenanigans and prolly tell you to look into that crack addiction.

Now, had Fetisov or Kasatonov actually played in the NHL during their primes, there's a very good chance and I have lil doubt myself that a couple Norris' would of went their way.

Lidstrom better years in the following years:

1998 Rob Blake
2000 Chris Pronger

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom better years in the following years:

1998 Rob Blake
2000 Chris Pronger

Better than Hart-trophy winning Pronger? Eh...

The only debatable Norris is the 1998 one IMO, and there have been lots of threads on it. I can see both sides. Pro Lidstrom - put up more points while being better defensively. Okay, that's a pretty strong case.

But the arguments for Blake: more goals, big intimidating hitter, and perhaps most important, the MVP of a surprising LA Kings team.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Better than Hart-trophy winning Pronger? Eh...

The only debatable Norris is the 1998 one IMO, and there have been lots of threads on it. I can see both sides. Pro Lidstrom - put up more points while being better defensively. Okay, that's a pretty strong case.

But the arguments for Blake: more goals, big intimidating hitter, and perhaps most important, the MVP of a surprising LA Kings team.

Lidstrom had more points and played more games. And it has been argued by others that points is made Bourque the better defenseman.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom had more points and played more games. And it has been argued by others that points is made Bourque the better defenseman.

Actually, it's Bourque's vastly superior amount of points to go along with his great defensive play that gives him the edge.

As has been stated many times in this thread by many posters, it is generally accepted Lidstrom has the edge over Bourque defensively but again that marginal defensive edge doesn't even come close to bridging the gaping chasm that Bourque has over him offensively.

If we were only talking about 200 more points in 200 more games then Lidstrom fairs much better but we're talking triple that for pete's sake.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Actually, it's Bourque's vastly superior amount of points to go along with his great defensive play that gives him the edge.

As has been stated many times in this thread by many posters, it is generally accepted Lidstrom has the edge over Bourque defensively but again that defensive edge doesn't even come close to bridging the gaping chasm that Bourque has offensively.

And again Bourque played big part of his career when goaltending wasn't nearly as good as has Lidstrom faced. I thought we cleared this up before. It's a simple fact that scoring was up in the 80's and early 90's. In 1983-1984 Gretzky had 205 points which was Bourque higest point season. Paul Coffey had 126 points. Bernie Federko had 107 points. Rick frickin Middleton had 105 points for pete's sake. And the list goes on.

 

[Dark Shadows]

That is exactly my point. Average players get better, that alone makes it harder to dominate. As for the sports stars you mentioned, if you look at football (soccer), there is no Maradonna today, sure there is elite group of guys, but they do not dominate the way Maradonna could. It is not possible.



At least I tried to adjust the numbers, you just say 600 more points in 200 more games. What does that mean over a season? Bourque 80 points, Lidstrom 60? Don't be ridiculous.
And Lidstrom's superior teams? If they did not win the Cups, who knows if Steve Y would still be known as The Captain etc. It's not like they had no competition. If Bruins actually won a Cup, it would be a team of heroes, not **** + Neely and Bourque. That is the difference.
Playing against goalies that can barely stop a beachball is far greater advantage.

You are kidding right?

 

[Rhiessan71]

And again Bourque played big part of his career when goaltending wasn't nearly as good as has Lidstrom faced. I thought we cleared this up before. It's a simple fact that scoring was up in the 80's and early 90's. In 1983-1984 Gretzky had 205 points which was Bourque higest point season. Paul Coffey had 126 points. Bernie Federko had 107 points. Rick frickin Middleton had 105 points for pete's sake. And the list goes on.

...and yet Bourque produced at about the same pace through from 90/91 till he retired in 00/01, 739 points in 818 games.

So lets recap
Ffirst 11 years
79/80-89/90 = 840 points in 794 games 1.06PPG
Last 11 years
90/91-00/01 = 739 points in 818 games .90 PPG

His ppg didn't even drop below 1.00 untill he was 37 freaking years old...like c'mon, seriously now.

Like I said, EVEN if you knock off a ridiculous amount of points like say 200 to compensate for the "80's", we're still talking 400 more points in just 200 more games and we're still not adjusting for Lidstrom's superior teams.
No matter how you slice it, Bourque is still that much further ahead.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

...and yet Bourque produced at about the same pace through from 90/91 till he retired in 00/01, 739 points in 818 games.

So lets recap
Ffirst 11 years
79/80-89/90 = 840 points in 794 games 1.06PPG
Last 11 years
90/91-00/01 = 739 points in 818 games .90 PPG

His ppg didn't even drop below 1.00 untill he was 37 freaking years old...like c'mon, seriously now.

Like I said, EVEN if you knock off a ridiculous amount of points like say 200 to compensate for the "80's", we're still talking 400 more points in just 200 more games and we're still not adjusting for Lidstrom's superior teams.
No matter how you slice it, Bourque is still that much further ahead.

Okay let's look at this.

100+ point scores

1983-1984 there were 12
1984-1985 there were 16
1985-1986 there were 13

For pete's sake there many 200+ point players.

1996-1997 there were 2
1997-1998 there were 1

The defense changed.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

For pete's sake there many 200+ point players.

One player (Wayne Gretzky) is "many" to you?

 

[revolverjgw]

Bourque was better. This guy routinely led his teams in scoring as a d-man, sometimes by large margins, and if he wasn't leading then he was often 2nd or 3rd. Mind boggling amount of all-star selections, far more than Lidstrom. 5 Norris trophies against probably the most stacked crop of d-men ever. Norris runner-up at 40. Routinely finished higher in Hart voting than Lidstrom. Finished higher in scoring races... adjust his offense all you want, he was still the better offensive d-men. Doesn't have a Conn Smythe, but he had runs as good or even better than Lidstrom's, it's just a hell of alot harder to win a Smythe or a Cup when the other team is a stacked Oilers team, not the Hurricanes or Capitals...

For me it's a decisive and clear Bourque win... not saying it's not close, though. It's like saying 1 dollar is more than 98 cents. They're separated in the all-time list by a spot, or two at most (I have them at 4 and 5).

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Lidstrom better years in the following years:

1998 Rob Blake
2000 Chris Pronger

Based on your comment about "many 200+ point scorers", I sincerely doubt you were even old enough to even remember watching Chris Pronger in 2000. It's only in the last two or three years that people have come out with this "Lidstrom should have won the Norris" and "Jagr should have won the Hart" crap. There was no questioning it at the time though. Everyone who watched that season saw Pronger dominate and take the Blues, who many had pegged as a merely decent team, to the President's Trophy.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay let's look at this.

100+ point scores

1983-1984 there were 12
1984-1985 there were 16
1985-1986 there were 13

For pete's sake there many 200+ point players.

1996-1997 there were 2
1997-1998 there were 1

The defense changed.

Some of that is hogwash though.
For example 83/84 was at 7.89 goals per game and Bourque scored 96 points.
Yet only 3 years later in 86/87 goal scoring had dropped half a goal a game to 7.34 yet Bourque still put up 95 points.
Next lets look at 90/91 and goal scoring is further down to 6.91 gpg and yet Bourque puts up 94 points.
Next we have 93/94, goal scoring is down to 6.48 gpg and Bourque puts up 91 points.
What's my point you might ask, well ya see aside from his 96 point year, the other three 90+ point seasons I listed were all from some of the lowest scoring years from the 80's and early 90's.
In other words, Bourque was actually producing less in higher scoring seasons.


How about we look at 95/96 now which was the last big year before the dead puck stuff starts creeping in.
Scoring was 6.29 gpg and a 36 year old Bourque puts up 82 points yet a 26 year old Lidstrom can only manage 67 points.
Add on top of this, Detroit was a FREAKIN 131 point team that scored 325 goals while Boston was a 91 point team that scored 282 goals.

Finally, let's skip ahead to 00/01 and goal scoring is way down to 5.51 gpg and a 41 year old and about to retire Bourque still puts up 60 points in 80 games! A 31 year old Lidstrom by comparison in that same year put up 71 points in 82 games, a mere 11 points more.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

A couple of things here, Lidstrom is missing a season due to the lockout through no fault of his own and the spread isn't as great when you adjust the points for the goal scoring eras 1552-1185 for Bourque.

Also Bourque scores 70.05 points per season adjusted while Lidstrom has 65.8.

Lidstrom broke into he NHL with a 60 point season as a 21 yr old and had played 3 seasons in the elite Swedish league so we need to give him soem credit for that as well. There is no formula for it but we can take an educated guess of 20, 30, 45 points for those 3 seasons in Sweden.

Lidstrom isn't finished yet and he might pass Bourque in a few guys minds depending on how much longer he plays but I understand that for some guys Lidstrom will never pass Bourque and that position is defensible as well.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Bourque was better. This guy routinely led his teams in scoring as a d-man, sometimes by large margins, and if he wasn't leading then he was often 2nd or 3rd. Mind boggling amount of all-star selections, far more than Lidstrom. 5 Norris trophies against probably the most stacked crop of d-men ever. Norris runner-up at 40. Routinely finished higher in Hart voting than Lidstrom. Finished higher in scoring races... adjust his offense all you want, he was still the better offensive d-men. Doesn't have a Conn Smythe, but he had runs as good or even better than Lidstrom's, it's just a hell of alot harder to win a Smythe or a Cup when the other team is a stacked Oilers team, not the Hurricanes or Capitals...

For me it's a decisive and clear Bourque win... not saying it's not close, though. It's like saying 1 dollar is more than 98 cents. They're separated in the all-time list by a spot, or two at most (I have them at 4 and 5).

This.