Take like 5 minutes and compare +/- by decade. The 70's and 80's had by far the highest +/- of any era because the disparity between good teams and bad teams was ridiculous. And the 80s Bruins, weren't a bad team, being top 4 for the decade.I know plus minus isn’t the all and be all, but bourque had a +493 over his career and lidstrom +450. To me bourque is the answer…no slight on lidstrom, but bourque can have a better career plus minus on weaker teams then lidstrom and shoot 50% more, I’ll take bourque
The History of Hockey Forum consensus has Bourque above Lidstrom for peak, prime and career.I’m surprised lidstrom is heavily outvoted to bourque, but most hf posters remember lidstrom better then bourque. I think I’d go with bourque to. He was a cannon, shot 340 shots a year most years.
Another guy in this poll did.Lindros. No modern player can stop him.
Bourque was arguably better than Lidström offensively, but Lidström was better than Bourque defensively. If you want a rock solid defensive anchor for 20 years then Lidström is a rather obvious choice over anyone in the history of the game. Bourque was a true franchise player in Boston, but ultimately they never won a cup with him unlike with Orr and Chára.The History of Hockey Forum consensus has Bourque above Lidstrom for peak, prime and career.
But it's obviously close.
Lidstrom always blows out Bourque on the main boards though, for the reason you stated: Most posters on the main boards never watched Bourque play and it's hard to fathom a defenceman being better than Lidstrom.
The biggest difference between the two players was Yzerman, Fedorov, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Chelios, Hasek, Shannahan, Larionov, Fetisov, Murphy, Konstantinov, Hull, and so on. If you were making a list of the players who have played with the highest quality of players in NHL history, Lidstrom is up there with Coffey and Henry Richard. He played on a stacked, HHOF-packed roster almost all of his career, while Bourque never had even remotely close to that kind of support.Bourque was arguably better than Lidström offensively, but Lidström was better than Bourque defensively. If you want a rock solid defensive anchor for 20 years then Lidström is a rather obvious choice over anyone in the history of the game. Bourque was a true franchise player in Boston, but ultimately they never won a cup with him unlike with Orr and Chára.
Detroit had some great teams no doubt, yet none of those players won four cups there. Lidström did.The biggest difference between the two players was Yzerman, Fedorov, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Chelios, Hasek, Shannahan, Larionov, Fetisov, Murphy, Konstantinov, Hull, and so on. If you were making a list of the players who have played with the highest quality of players in NHL history, Lidstrom is up there with Coffey and Henry Richard. He played on a stacked, HHOF-packed roster almost all of his career, while Bourque never had even remotely close to that kind of support.
When the Bourque Bruins were at their peak, in the late 80s, his best support was Neely, Janney, Carpenter, Linesman, Kasper, Courtnall and Wesley. Him winning the Cup in a pre-cap, Oilers and Penguins-dominated NHL was never going to happen. The moment he went to a true contender, he immediately won.
IMO, Bourque dominated the game to a greater extent than Lidstrom through most of his career, while boasting similar longevity.