Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[Dark Shadows]

Leaving out the trophies (because I kind of agree there was a cluster of top defenseman during parts of Bourques career that are better than the competition faced by Lidstrom), how is Bourques peak better than Lidstrom's?

I think he was a little better offensively (especially shot) but they both have amazing longevity and as we are all so fond of pointing out.. Bourque had the benefit of playing a lot of years in a higher average scoring era.

Bourques last big season in 95-96 was at age 35 where he had 82 points in 82 games. Average scoring that year was 6.29.

Lidstroms career season offensively was at age 35 where he had 80 points in 80 games. It strikes me as rather odd to have a player of his pedigree have his best offensive season at 35. Average scoring that year was 6.17.

That is about as close as you can get across 10 years.

From what I saw with my own 2 eyes, Bourque's top 5-6 years are decisively better than Lidstrom's best 5 years, and he has several more years which are on par with Lidstrom's best.

Lidstrom having his best offensive season(as far as points go) at age 35 had more to with the league crackdown on infractions and the ridiculous number of penalties being called than it did with him being better than he used to be.

Gotta love the gems people toss out when there's no way they can be proven wrong (or right).

The quality of the competition has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the quality of Lidstrom.

I watched them all play. Bourque's best seasons eclipse Lidstrom's best. He would not be beating him for a norris trophy. Chelios's norris seasons likewise are better than Lidstrom's best by my eyes and Macinnis' best 2 seasons also would be tough for Lidstrom to beat. The point is, they were superior players when they were younger compared to their 40 year old selves that were going runner up to Lidstrom since there was little other real consistent competition at the time. Nor so I see him easily beating out the beast that was Stevens in his best 2 years. Lidstrom walked over the crop he walked over partially because he was so good, but moreso because like in so many other era's, that position was weaker at the time. 6 Norris trophies would not have been possible for him had he played his prime in the 80's.

No, you claim Bourque was among the top 2 or 3 defenseman in the league right away when he first entered the NHL while Lidstrom wasn't ranked that high at the start of his career. You also claim Bourque had much tougher competition for the Norris in his prime due to Chelios, Stevens, MacInnis, Leetch etc. (the very same prime years when Lidstrom entered the league). My question is was Bourque's competition when he entered the league as good and as deep as Lidstrom's when he entered the league? You seem to want to compare competition during their prime years but not when they first entered the NHL. I smell bias.

The guy who only shows up in the History section when Lidstrom's name is mentioned is smelling bias. Color me surprised.

Bourque had tougher competition for the norris right from the start of his career. That to me is undisputed. The late 70's to the mid 90's was the golden age of defensemen.

As already stated, Bourque hopped into the league facing Robinson, Potvin, Salming and an already elite Mark Howe. Heck yes that was a deep pool of talent and he swam right to the top. Within his first few years also saw the emergence of Coffey, Langway and Wilson(Who yes, was an excellent defenseman in his best years, finishing high in Norris voting several other years). You can cry about Carlyle all you want. He was terrific in his flash in the pan year, although he did not deserve the norris over Potvin. But the trend of voting for high scoring defensemen(Particularly one on a weak team) was more prevalent then than it is these days, when people complain about Green getting votes. You try to point at his career, rather than his standout year and say "Look, he sucked. weak competition" when in fact, he had a great year far above the level he normally played.

Lidstrom started in the league against equally tough competition, but was not a factor in norris voting against the second tier of guys like Housley, Murphy, Hatcher, Zubov other than a single 3rd place norris vote in 94. Lidstrom was noticed for his great play right away, but was not yet among the top 10 best. Bourque was immediately lumped into the top bunch with Potvin, Robinson and Salming

As for the rest, you just sound like a Bourque fan spouting off things you can't prove. For instance, to say that many of Bourque's best years top Lidstrom's best years is laughable. In 2002 Lidstrom won the Norris, Conn Smythe and a Cup as a #1 dman and anchor on the Red Wings. It doesn't get much better than that and I would take those accomplishments over anything Bourque did in any single year (season and playoffs).

Well hurrah for Team trophies and accomplishments. And again, the guy who only comes to this section to talk about Lidstrom every time he sees his name come up should not be calling others on bias. I was very critical of Bourque when others tried to place him above Harvey or Shore, whom I do not think he has a case over.

It is nearly impossible for a non-goalie player to win the Smythe or cup on a losing team. Even if he did visibly carry them on his back as much as Bourque. I have seen the best of Lidstrom. He would not have been carrying those Bruins teams to a cup either, and the best of Bourque would have been winning cups and Smythe's on the wings in his place.

You know, you prolly have a point there, Lidstrom prolly did enter the league at what arguably might of been the height of the dman class for talent and depth in the history of the NHL.
I mean the late 80's/early 90's sported a hell of a group of dmen.

That being said though, you could also more than reasonably argue that the last 10 years have sported what might be the weakest class of dmen since the '67 expansion. The depth is there sure but the overall level of talent by comparison....I don't think so.

So in the end Bourque basically won his Norris' as the best of the best and Lidstrom won his as the best of the worst.

Now I'm not saying that Lidstrom wouldn't of won any Norris if he started 10 years earlier.
What I am saying is I guarantee you it's no where near 6 of them.

That's why Bourque's 5 will always be more impressive than Lidstrom's 6.

Exactly

 

[Dark Shadows]

I don't think Bourque ever sacrificed defense for offense. Because he pretty much carried the Bruins for most of his career, he always had to do everything he could to win games. I often thought he didn't rush the puck enough when the B's were down a goal or two in the third period.

When overtime came into regular season games, Cheevers was coaching. He'd play Bourque, somewhere between 2 and 3 minutes in call timeout, and play Bourque the rest of the overtime. Poor guy could barely make it off the ice if the OT went full five minutes.

He usually did not. He gambled sometimes. But his immense skill and understanding of when he could allowed that gambling to be nearly risk free with high reward. He might as well have been playing stay at home defense. The coaches and players who routinely voted him among the best defensive defensemen in the NHL seemed to think so.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I do somewhat agree that the competition faced by Bourque may have been tougher at times but I don't think that should make us disregard Lidstrom's wins.

He has been voted the best shutdown defenseman in the NHL by his peers.. won 6 Norris trophies, 3 Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe, scored over 1000 points as a defenseman, and broken the barriers for a European player to win both the Norris and Conn Smythe and he is the only non-Canadian captain to win a Cup.

Maybe Bourque was better but anyone saying he was a lot better is deluding themselves. It is like comparing Mario and Wayne. Each have points in their favour.

I really have a hard time believing the difference is much of anything rather than style of play.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

I do somewhat agree that the competition faced by Bourque may have been tougher at times but I don't think that should make us disregard Lidstrom's wins.

He has been voted the best shutdown defenseman in the NHL by his peers.. won 6 Norris trophies, 3 Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe, scored over 1000 points as a defenseman, and broken the barriers for a European player to win both the Norris and Conn Smythe and he is the only non-Canadian captain to win a Cup.

Maybe Bourque was better but anyone saying he was a lot better is deluding themselves. It is like comparing Mario and Wayne. Each have points in their favour.

I really have a hard time believing the difference is much of anything rather than style of play.

4 Stanley Cups. In every playoff series he has played in he was assigned to defend the other teams best players and has succesfully shut them down. From Crosby to Lindros.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I do somewhat agree that the competition faced by Bourque may have been tougher at times but I don't think that should make us disregard Lidstrom's wins.

He has been voted the best shutdown defenseman in the NHL by his peers.. won 6 Norris trophies, 3 Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe, scored over 1000 points as a defenseman, and broken the barriers for a European player to win both the Norris and Conn Smythe and he is the only non-Canadian captain to win a Cup.

Maybe Bourque was better but anyone saying he was a lot better is deluding themselves. It is like comparing Mario and Wayne. Each have points in their favour.

I really have a hard time believing the difference is much of anything rather than style of play.

Nobody is disregarding his wins. We are simply saying to those who throw out the simple "6 Norris trophies vs 5 Norris Trophies" that it was far less likely he would have 6 Norris trophies vs Bourque's competition. Lidstrom was a phenomenal defenseman and one of my favorite players all time, but assuming he would have won that many during the golden age of defenseman as opposed to it's decline is far fetched.

Unfortunately, many people start throwing out random opinions that are often ridiculous and tempers flare. Posts take on a harder edge, and a comparison often turns into "Who can downplay player X more". I am as guilty of it as anyone. Opinions such as "Bourque was good, but he could not win it all in Boston 4 times and does not have a smythe, so Lidstrom was better". Any reasonable person will look at the two teams and see the difference. Nobody short of Orr could have traded places with Bourque and won that team a cup.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Nobody is disregarding his wins. We are simply saying to those who throw out the simple "6 Norris trophies vs 5 Norris Trophies" that it was far less likely he would have 6 Norris trophies vs Bourque's competition. Lidstrom was a phenomenal defenseman and one of my favorite players all time, but assuming he would have won that many during the golden age of defenseman as opposed to it's decline is far fetched.

Unfortunately, many people start throwing out random opinions that are often ridiculous and tempers flare. Posts take on a harder edge, and a comparison often turns into "Who can downplay player X more". I am as guilty of it as anyone. Opinions such as "Bourque was good, but he could not win it all in Boston 4 times and does not have a smythe, so Lidstrom was better". Any reasonable person will look at the two teams and see the difference. Nobody short of Orr could have traded places with Bourque and won that team a cup.

Oh yeah I wouldn't ever say that because Lidstrom won 6 he was better.

A Norris trophy is not equal to a Norris trophy in different years.

Any trophy that is voted on is subject to bias of various forms and you always have to have a bit of doubt in the back of your mind about them.

 

[Dark Shadows]

4 Stanley Cups. In every playoff series he has played in he was assigned to defend the other teams best players and has succesfully shut them down. From Crosby to Lindros.

And Lidstrom had everything to do with the 4 cups right? Selke winning forwards Yzerman, Fedorov and Draper, Datsyuk and Selke runner up Zetterberg, as well as other superstars and Key pieces + Depth that were continually moved in like Shanahan, Konstantinov, Larionov, Vernon, Murphy, Chelios, Hull, Robitaille......

The team he played for didn't make a lick of difference? He would have done the same on any team? Won 4 cups?

Lidstrom, to me, was the best and most important player on that team. But if you swapped him out for a prime Ray Bourque, I say Bourque would be carrying the cups and Smythe as well.

No defenseman short of Bobby Orr could have carried that bruins team further or done more on the ice than Ray did the 2 times he carried them to the finals. The Bruins generally got ripped to shreds by the Oilers when Bourque was on the bench, yet the other half of the game when he was on the ice, it was a good fight.

 

[sr edler]

4 Stanley Cups. In every playoff series he has played in he was assigned to defend the other teams best players and has succesfully shut them down. From Crosby to Lindros.

except thornton owned him here



'joe thornton is now over the top, he's had it'

 

[lazerbullet]

Detroit started to win Stanley Cups only when Lidstrom established himself as a top dman in the league. Key piece in every win. Even more than Yzerman if you look at it honestly. Sure those teams were stacked, but he won a Conn Smythe while beating a whole bunch of HoFers. DRW 2008 will not look as stacked in the future, because only Lidas is a lock for HoF. Osgood is very borderline, Datsyuk & Zetterberg might make it. Others have no chance.

Anyway... it's as close as Sakic vs Yzerman. Matter of taste. I prefer Lidas.

 

[jkrx]

And Lidstrom had everything to do with the 4 cups right? Selke winning forwards Yzerman, Fedorov and Draper, Datsyuk and Selke runner up Zetterberg, as well as other superstars and Key pieces + Depth that were continually moved in like Shanahan, Konstantinov, Larionov, Vernon, Murphy, Chelios, Hull, Robitaille......

The team he played for didn't make a lick of difference? He would have done the same on any team? Won 4 cups?

Lidstrom, to me, was the best and most important player on that team. But if you swapped him out for a prime Ray Bourque, I say Bourque would be carrying the cups and Smythe as well.

No defenseman short of Bobby Orr could have carried that bruins team further or done more on the ice than Ray did the 2 times he carried them to the finals. The Bruins generally got ripped to shreds by the Oilers when Bourque was on the bench, yet the other half of the game when he was on the ice, it was a good fight.

No he wouldn't. Lidström carried the team this season when most key players were out. He carried the team together with Yzerman in 2002. He has been nothing short of supreme for the Red Wings.

You talk like the Bruins team that reached the finals were a bunch of AHL players and Bourque. They and the habs were the most defensively solid team in the league and thats the reason they reached finals. Linseman and Neely carried that team as much as Bourque.

 

[Reds4Life]

Lidstrom also has a significant edge in international play, and that is kind of a miracle considering he never ever missed NHL playoffs.

 

[Dark Shadows]

No he wouldn't. Lidström carried the team this season when most key players were out. He carried the team together with Yzerman in 2002. He has been nothing short of supreme for the Red Wings.

And Ray Bourque more than Carried the Bruins with far less most of his career. He was nothing short of supreme for the Bruins. Praised by coaches and players alike as being the best defensive defenseman in the NHL, while leading the Bruins in scoring 5 times.

You talk like the Bruins team that reached the finals were a bunch of AHL players and Bourque. They and the habs were the most defensively solid team in the league and thats the reason they reached finals. Linseman and Neely carried that team as much as Bourque.

At this point, I am just going to cut and paste some of my old answers.

The Bruins that reached the finals were absolutely no match for the Oilers teams they played, and no defenseman short of Possibly Orr could have done better. In depth, goal, or scoring. Lidstrom would not have been able to do a better Job than Bourque with that one line Bruins squad. In fact, the Oilers main strategy against the Bruins was not to cover Neely or Linseman. It was to cover Bourque as if he were a forward, pressure him more than any other player and make sure he could not carry the puck or get into the play. Because the Bruins really had little beyond him.

Linseman? Really? Are we talking about the same Linseman who was responsible for a good deal of goals against that playoff(Despite being decent in the regular season) and many untimely unnecessary penalties? Linseman was a 2nd line caliber player who got 1st line icetime in Boston. Granted he was one of the only other Bruins who showed up in the finals with Bourque that year, although Linseman was letting in as many goals as he was helping on by that point. He is a far far cry from an Yzerman/Fedorov/Shanahan/Larionov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg, etc etc.

Neely? Yes, ill give you that. Neely and later, Moog along with Bourque kept that team afloat. But Bourque was their catalyst, and the guy opposing teams tried to shut down. The team could rarely do anything without Bourque. Both finals years, Bourque was their MVP and the guy opposing teams were shutting down. The biggest problem was, the team was getting massacred because Bourque could not play the entire game. When he was on the ice, they put up a fight. But no defenseman can play the entire game. 30-35 minutes a night in a 60 minute game is the most you could squeeze from anyone by that point. When your team's less than Adequate 2nd defensive pairing has to contend with a 2nd line that would be a superstar first line on most other teams.

In the 1990 finals, Bourque was tallied a goal or assist on 5 of Boston's 8 goals(1PP, 4 ES) in the entire series and made another goal happen with his legendary outlet pass, although he was not credited with an assist. Pretty horrendous offense from the Bruins outside of Captain Ray Bourque. Neely and Janney both held goalless for the series. When your top line scorers are being held off the sheet and the opposing team is scoring at will when you are on the bench, no matter who you are, you cannot force a win.

A grand total of 5 ES points while Bourque was on the ice, and yet despite the fact that the Oilers outscored the Bruins 20-8 in the series, 17-7 at ES, Bourque was only -1, despite playing 30+ minutes a game. As another member already said, the majority of the time when a series is going this lopsided, the guy who logs the most icetime against the opposing teams top forwards almost always has the worse +/-. In this case, it proves he was stellar defensively, and that while he was on the ice was virtually the only time his team was scoring and keeping pucks out of the net.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No defenseman short of Bobby Orr could have carried that bruins team further or done more on the ice than Ray did the 2 times he carried them to the finals. The Bruins generally got ripped to shreds by the Oilers when Bourque was on the bench, yet the other half of the game when he was on the ice, it was a good fight.

Exactly this and that is the difference between Lidstrom and Bourque.
When Lidstrom was on the bench for 35 mins or so, the Wings were still a very good team and the difference in their play was minor.
That was no where near the case with the Bruins. When Bourque was on the bench for 25 mins or so, the Bruins level of play dropped substantially.

Oh and I'm sorry but the people saying Bourque took a lot of chances regularly are on crack and obviously never really saw him play. Housley was a dman that took a lot of chances and if you try and put Bourque in the same category as him, then we're going to throw down right here, right now .

 

[jkrx]

And Ray Bourque more than Carried the Bruins with far less most of his career. He was nothing short of supreme for the Bruins. Praised by coaches and players alike as being the best defensive defenseman in the NHL, while leading the Bruins in scoring 5 times.


At this point, I am just going to cut and paste some of my old answers.

The Bruins that reached the finals were absolutely no match for the Oilers teams they played, and no defenseman short of Possibly Orr could have done better. In depth, goal, or scoring. Lidstrom would not have been able to do a better Job than Bourque with that one line Bruins squad. In fact, the Oilers main strategy against the Bruins was not to cover Neely or Linseman. It was to cover Bourque as if he were a forward, pressure him more than any other player and make sure he could not carry the puck or get into the play. Because the Bruins really had little beyond him.

Linseman? Really? Are we talking about the same Linseman who was responsible for a good deal of goals against that playoff(Despite being decent in the regular season) and many untimely unnecessary penalties? Linseman was a 2nd line caliber player who got 1st line icetime in Boston. Granted he was one of the only other Bruins who showed up in the finals with Bourque that year, although Linseman was letting in as many goals as he was helping on by that point. He is a far far cry from an Yzerman/Fedorov/Shanahan/Larionov/Datsyuk/Zetterberg, etc etc.

Neely? Yes, ill give you that. Neely and later, Moog along with Bourque kept that team afloat. But Bourque was their catalyst, and the guy opposing teams tried to shut down. The team could rarely do anything without Bourque. Both finals years, Bourque was their MVP and the guy opposing teams were shutting down. The biggest problem was, the team was getting massacred because Bourque could not play the entire game. When he was on the ice, they put up a fight. But no defenseman can play the entire game. 30-35 minutes a night in a 60 minute game is the most you could squeeze from anyone by that point. When your team's less than Adequate 2nd defensive pairing has to contend with a 2nd line that would be a superstar first line on most other teams.

In the 1990 finals, Bourque was tallied a goal or assist on 5 of Boston's 8 goals(1PP, 4 ES) in the entire series and made another goal happen with his legendary outlet pass, although he was not credited with an assist. Pretty horrendous offense from the Bruins outside of Captain Ray Bourque. Neely and Janney both held goalless for the series. When your top line scorers are being held off the sheet and the opposing team is scoring at will when you are on the bench, no matter who you are, you cannot force a win.

A grand total of 5 ES points while Bourque was on the ice, and yet despite the fact that the Oilers outscored the Bruins 20-8 in the series, 17-7 at ES, Bourque was only -1, despite playing 30+ minutes a game. As another member already said, the majority of the time when a series is going this lopsided, the guy who logs the most icetime against the opposing teams top forwards almost always has the worse +/-. In this case, it proves he was stellar defensively, and that while he was on the ice was virtually the only time his team was scoring and keeping pucks out of the net.

Your basis for that bolded part? In Detroit he never had to do the things Bourque did in that series in the '90s playoff but he did it whenever he needed to do it. You can't honestly say that Lidström couldn't do it because you have no proof of it unless you sit on a timemachine.

As I said Lidström did what Bourque did when it was needed of him. He is far more defenively responsible on the various Wings teams than Bourque were on Boston. (Again, not saying Bourque wasnt defensively responsible).

He rarely had a defensive D as parter but played with other offensive players like Murphy or Rafalski.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Your basis for that bolded part? In Detroit he never had to do the things Bourque did in that series in the '90s playoff but he did it whenever he needed to do it. You can't honestly say that Lidström couldn't do it because you have no proof of it unless you sit on a timemachine.

As I said Lidström did what Bourque did when it was needed of him. He is far more defenively responsible on the various Wings teams than Bourque were on Boston. (Again, not saying Bourque wasnt defensively responsible).

He rarely had a defensive D as parter but played with other offensive players like Murphy or Rafalski.

Lidstrom's edge in defense is extremely small over Bourque, who was heralded as the best defensive defenseman in the league many times by coaches and players alike, while also being one of the best offensive at the same time.

His offensive edge over Lidstrom is larger.

The bottom line is, those Red wings teams were stacked to the Core, and putting a guy like Bourque on that team in Lidstrom's place would likely field the same results. While Lidstrom on the starless pale by comparison Bruins also likely fields the same results.
Opinion? Yes. But Having watched both play their entire careers, I feel perfectly comfortable making that opinion. So do most of the others here thus far.

 

[jkrx]

Lidstrom's edge in defense is extremely small over Bourque, who was heralded as the best defensive defenseman in the league many times by coaches and players alike, while also being one of the best offensive at the same time.

His offensive edge over Lidstrom is larger.

The bottom line is, those Red wings teams were stacked to the Core, and putting a guy like Bourque on that team in Lidstrom's place would likely field the same results. While Lidstrom on the starless pale by comparison Bruins also likely fields the same results.
Opinion? Yes. But Having watched both play their entire careers, I feel perfectly comfortable making that opinion. So do most of the others here thus far.

I have watched both careers too but please keep majority arguments out of it. Its a poor way to debate. Just because people agree with something doesnt make them right. It's not a strong argument to use against another to prove ones point.

Lidströms defense is not marginally better than Bourques. Its better. Lidström plays with a minimal risk of penalties while Bourque played with a much bigger risk of taking a penalty. Thus making Lidström more valueable in that department.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I have watched both careers too but please keep majority arguments out of it. Its a poor way to debate. Just because people agree with something doesnt make them right. It's not a strong argument to use against another to prove ones point.

Lidströms defense is not marginally better than Bourques. Its better. Lidström plays with a minimal risk of penalties while Bourque played with a much bigger risk of taking a penalty. Thus making Lidström more valueable in that department.

Wow, talking of poor arguments. Bourque had a physical edge that Lidstrom just never had and you're knocking Bourque based on penalty minutes. Lidstroms D was marginally better than Bourques, while Bourques offensive edge was more than marginal.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

except thornton owned him here



'joe thornton is now over the top, he's had it'

What exactly does this have to do with anything here?

 

[jkrx]

Wow, talking of poor arguments. Bourque had a physical edge that Lidstrom just never had and you're knocking Bourque based on penalty minutes. Lidstroms D was marginally better than Bourques, while Bourques offensive edge was more than marginal.

So you are saying that having your best defenseman in the penalty box opposed to having a defenseman who doesnt get a penalty even half as often is better?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Wow, talking of poor arguments. Bourque had a physical edge that Lidstrom just never had and you're knocking Bourque based on penalty minutes. Lidstroms D was marginally better than Bourques, while Bourques offensive edge was more than marginal.

No matter how much your physical ability helps your team.. having your best defenseman sitting in the box instead of helping kill the penalty doesn't help much.

If Lidstrom is able to accomplish shutting down players without taking penalties.. all the better for him.

 

[canucks4ever]

Lidstrom's edge in defense is extremely small over Bourque, who was heralded as the best defensive defenseman in the league many times by coaches and players alike, while also being one of the best offensive at the same time.

His offensive edge over Lidstrom is larger.

The bottom line is, those Red wings teams were stacked to the Core, and putting a guy like Bourque on that team in Lidstrom's place would likely field the same results. While Lidstrom on the starless pale by comparison Bruins also likely fields the same results.
Opinion? Yes. But Having watched both play their entire careers, I feel perfectly comfortable making that opinion. So do most of the others here thus far.

If you go by raw numbers, yeah he has an edge. But not by actual finishes in the scoring race. Either way, offense is always a dumb way to judge who is the better defencemen, this is bourque were talkin about, not orr. Defense is always more important than offense and lidstrom was just a better defender.

I also disagree that chelios had better norris years. 73 points in run n gun hockey is like a 55 point season in the deadpuck era. Chris was also known for taking stupid penalties, your not really helping your team when your in the penalty box. Al Macinnis was always just good to average defensively, him racking up a bunch of points does not make his prime better than lidstrom's. All the big numbers of leetch and macinnis disappeared once the trap started.

It's not like bourque was some deadly goal scorer, his extra points were basically secondary assists. What's more important? To stay deep in your position and defend, or rack up secondary assists and appear on the scoresheet?

 

[canucks4ever]

From what I saw with my own 2 eyes, Bourque's top 5-6 years are decisively better than Lidstrom's best 5 years, and he has several more years which are on par with Lidstrom's best.

Lidstrom having his best offensive season(as far as points go) at age 35 had more to with the league crackdown on infractions and the ridiculous number of penalties being called than it did with him being better than he used to be.


I watched them all play. Bourque's best seasons eclipse Lidstrom's best. He would not be beating him for a norris trophy. Chelios's norris seasons likewise are better than Lidstrom's best by my eyes and Macinnis' best 2 seasons also would be tough for Lidstrom to beat. The point is, they were superior players when they were younger compared to their 40 year old selves that were going runner up to Lidstrom since there was little other real consistent competition at the time. Nor so I see him easily beating out the beast that was Stevens in his best 2 years. Lidstrom walked over the crop he walked over partially because he was so good, but moreso because like in so many other era's, that position was weaker at the time. 6 Norris trophies would not have been possible for him had he played his prime in the 80's.


The guy who only shows up in the History section when Lidstrom's name is mentioned is smelling bias. Color me surprised.

Bourque had tougher competition for the norris right from the start of his career. That to me is undisputed. The late 70's to the mid 90's was the golden age of defensemen.



Exactly

Yeah lidstom had his best season when scoring went up, but bourque played his entire prime when the league was averaging over 7 goals per game and never hit 100 points, his offense isn't that great.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

If you go by raw numbers, yeah he has an edge. But not by actual finishes in the scoring race. Either way, offense is always a dumb way to judge who is the better defencemen, this is bourque were talkin about, not orr. Defense is always more important than offense and lidstrom was just a better defender.

I also disagree that chelios had better norris years. 73 points in run n gun hockey is like a 55 point season in the deadpuck era. Chris was also known for taking stupid penalties, your not really helping your team when your in the penalty box. Al Macinnis was always just good to average defensively, him racking up a bunch of points does not make his prime better than lidstrom's. All the big numbers of leetch and macinnis disappeared once the trap started.

It's not like bourque was some deadly goal scorer, his extra points were basically secondary assists. What's more important? To stay deep in your position and defend, or rack up secondary assists and appear on the scoresheet?

If you go by adjusted numbers he also has a clear edge. I also don't see how people think Lidstrom has a clear edge on Bourque defensively when Lidstrom has spent his entire career playing with elite two-way forwards, and for the most part solid defensive pairs. I'd say they're even defensively (technically impossible, but impossible to give any clear edge to either one) not offensively though. Bourque was better regardless of era.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yeah lidstom had his best season when scoring went up, but bourque played his entire prime when the league was averaging over 7 goals per game and never hit 100 points, his offense isn't that great.

Yet Bourque had his strongest statistical season in 93/94 with 91 points in 70 games and that was the lowest scoring year since the early 70's.

His offense isn't that great my ass, it was good enough to lead the league for dmen, usually only second to Coffey.

Like you realise we're talking about a Dman not hitting 100 points right, you know that is something you can count on one hand the number of players that have.

Orr 6 times
Coffey 5 times
Potvin 1 time
Leetch 1 time
Macinnis 1 time

I think that's it.

You don't make it to 11th all time in points especially as a Dman with only good or above average offense, that's ridiculous.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have watched both careers too but please keep majority arguments out of it. Its a poor way to debate. Just because people agree with something doesnt make them right. It's not a strong argument to use against another to prove ones point.

Lidströms defense is not marginally better than Bourques. Its better. Lidström plays with a minimal risk of penalties while Bourque played with a much bigger risk of taking a penalty. Thus making Lidström more valueable in that department.

I disagree. No disrespect to Lidstrom, because I know how great he is. But you are underestimating Bourque's defensive game.

Any Wings fans have a list of partner's Lidstrom has had in Detroit?

Bourque had Glen Wesley, Kyle McLaren, Stephan Quintal, Jonathan Girard and Hall Gill when they were rookies (with no pro experience). He had Randy Hillier for Hillier's first couple of years. John Blum. Allen Pederesen. Jim Weimer (over the hill). Dave Ellett (way over the hill). And for many seasons the incomparable Don Sweeney.

Basically he paired with kids with no experience or veterans who could no longer skate. Or kids like Blum and Pederesen who could never skate. Indeed, Don Sweeney (who was no prize) was his very best partner.