Bourque in 00-01 vs Lidstrom in 10-11

[TheMoreYouKnow]

I think Lidstrom's -2 is more a result of his hefty PP time and reduced ES minutes. I still believe he was or is Detroit's best defensive defenseman.

Babcock could have been protecting him I suppose, but I think it was more preserving an elderly man and reducing risks. Does anyone have his playoff minutes? That would be helpful.

playoff TOI for lidstrom:
21:49 total (2nd on team)
17:05 ES (3rd on team)
0:29 SH (5th on team)
4:13 PP (1st on team)

Very similar to his numbers for the regular season except his SH time went way down to almost nothing, but that wasn't a surprise. Babcock took Lidstrom out of the regular PK units already in the last months of the regular season.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Good comparison, almost too close to call. I would give Lidstrom the slight edge.

 

[WingsFan95]

Bourque had the better team.

I pick Lids.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

After thinking about this for longer, I'm giving it to Bourque by the smallest margin.

Reasoning comes down to simply the insane number of minutes he played, including all the tough minutes.

This past year is the first time since Lidstrom became Detroit's #1 that he started to get his minutes a little bit sheltered.

 

[steve141]

After thinking about this for longer, I'm giving it to Bourque by the smallest margin.

Reasoning comes down to simply the insane number of minutes he played, including all the tough minutes.

I agree about this. 26+ minutes as a 40 year old is just remarkable.

This past year is the first time since Lidstrom became Detroit's #1 that he started to get his minutes a little bit sheltered.

For what it's worth, Lidstrom still played the toughest minutes of any player in the NHL, according to Behindthenet's QualComp metric: http://www.behindthenet.ca/nhl_stat...0_s&f2=5v5&f7=40-&c=0+1+3+5+11+12+13+14+15+16

Detroit had an unusual defenceman setup this year. Instead of putting their best defencemen on the top pairings Babcock put his top three defencemen on three different lines, allowing him to roll his lines pretty evenly timewise. Behindthenet shows that there were big differences in how the lines were used though. This explains some of the unusual statistical effects for all of Detroit's defenders this year (e.g. Rafalski getting the highest +/- despite playing injured and having a terrible year defensively).

 

[Hardyvan123]

An overlooked consideration is that Ray Bourque was playing his first full season with the Avalanche so he had to undergo a team integration process, learning the individual player skills and traits, team systems and adapting his skills and strengths to the optimum within the structures of the Avalanche.

Nicklas Lidstrom on the other hand during the 2010-11 season had all the benefits of familiarity and continuity with few exceptions, minor roster adjustments.Many of the core Red Wings have been together with Lidstrom for well over five seasons and the mutual support shown as the team gets older makes each individual's performance better.

This is really weak, a superstar Dman should be able to adapt and he played with the team down the stretch the previous season as well so it's rather moot IMO.

Bourque's goalie was Patrick Roy.

Lidstrom's were Howard/Osgood/Macdonald.

I take Lidstrom.

Good point here.

IMO both seasons were overrated by the voters. I don't think Lidstrom was the best d-man this season and I don't think Bourque was the 2nd best that season. Their vote standings were rep related IMO.

That said, I think Bourque played a better all round game that season than Lidstrom this season.

I'll agree with the 1st point here Dmen ride their reputations later in their career as a general note and do not get recognition
as early as they deserve in most cases as well.

2nd point is debatable, thus the reason for the thread but overall given team context and playoffs I'll take Lidstrom but really it's extremely close.

So in every other comparison people bring up that Lidstrom played for "powerhouse, all star" Wings teams(not the case, but ok), yet in this comparison it's basically thrown out the window because it goes against Bourque and works in Lidstrom's favour.

I mean, give me a break, Bourque played with a prime Sakic, Forsberg, Blake, Foote, and Roy. Lidstrom had Datsyuk and Zetterberg, no comparable dmen, and a second year Jimmy Howard in net.

And still put up more points and was only -2. The other two Norris Finalists this year played in front of Vezina Finalists...

But of course, Bourque was so much better in his year, the team had nothing to do with it, yada yada.

If only Lidstrom were Canadian.

Agree with everything up to the last point, it's not that Lidstrom is Swedish, it's that many posters get selective in their opinions and come to a conclusion 1st then use facts that back their argument and discount facts that don't. Part human nature, part of being a fan, maybe part of being a man as well who knows.

At least we know who will have the better age 41 season.

 

[finchster]

There is simply no debate, it is Bourque.

Lidstrom played a whopping 23 minutes a night in the regular season and 22 minutes a night in the playoffs. Lidstrom was also stopped killing penalties near the end of the season and was being used primarily in offensive situations.

Bourque on the other hand played 26 minutes a night in the regular season in all situations and saw his TOI rise in the playoffs to 28 minutes a night.

Call me crazy but when one defenceman is not playing in all situations and playing fewer minutes a night, to used an all too often used phrase on Hfboards, it isn't even close.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is simply no debate, it is Bourque.

Lidstrom played a whopping 23 minutes a night in the regular season and 22 minutes a night in the playoffs. Lidstrom was also stopped killing penalties near the end of the season and was being used primarily in offensive situations.

Bourque on the other hand played 26 minutes a night in the regular season in all situations and saw his TOI rise in the playoffs to 28 minutes a night.

Call me crazy but when one defenceman is not playing in all situations and playing fewer minutes a night, to used an all too often used phrase on Hfboards, it isn't even close.

Lidstrom's lack of penalty killing towards the end of the year is what I meant by "his minutes were sheltered somewhat." but why do you say he played mostly in offensive situations? Accordingly to Red Wings fans, backed up by stats (QOC and defensive zone draws), Lidstrom still got the tough defensive matchup at even strength.

 

[finchster]

Lidstrom's lack of penalty killing towards the end of the year is what I meant by "his minutes were sheltered somewhat." but why do you say he played mostly in offensive situations? Accordingly to Red Wings fans, backed up by stats (QOC and defensive zone draws), Lidstrom still got the tough defensive matchup at even strength.

What I mean is by the end of the season and into the playoffs that somewhat changed. Primarly is not the correct word, increasingly placed in offensive situations by the end of the season and playoffs.

If you look at the stats, Stuart was on the ice for more defensive zone face-offs than Lidstrom was in the playoffs.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Lidstrom's lack of penalty killing towards the end of the year is what I meant by "his minutes were sheltered somewhat." but why do you say he played mostly in offensive situations? Accordingly to Red Wings fans, backed up by stats (QOC and defensive zone draws), Lidstrom still got the tough defensive matchup at even strength.

I have to agree here, it's not like he was being spotted or anything and to suggest that it is not even close s, like Fincher suggests, shows a lack of openmindedness on the subject IMO.

In the playoffs Lidstrom was far and above the best Dman on the Wings and his stats show this as well as anyone who actually watched him play.

 

[Crosbyfan]

There is simply no debate, it is Bourque.

Lidstrom played a whopping 23 minutes a night in the regular season and 22 minutes a night in the playoffs. Lidstrom was also stopped killing penalties near the end of the season and was being used primarily in offensive situations.

Bourque on the other hand played 26 minutes a night in the regular season in all situations and saw his TOI rise in the playoffs to 28 minutes a night.

Call me crazy but when one defenceman is not playing in all situations and playing fewer minutes a night, to used an all too often used phrase on Hfboards, it isn't even close.

Is that a slight on Lidstrom? "only" 23 minute a night at 40 years old?

No offence to Lidstrom, and his team was not as good, but Bourque playing those minutes on a stronger team says a lot, and watching them he seemed the stronger player.. but that said I think it has to be close.

 

[finchster]

I have to agree here, it's not like he was being spotted or anything and to suggest that it is not even close s, like Fincher suggests, shows a lack of openmindedness on the subject IMO.

In the playoffs Lidstrom was far and above the best Dman on the Wings and his stats show this as well as anyone who actually watched him play.

I am not saying Lidstrom wasn’t Detroit’s best defenceman or Lidstrom was ‘bad’. What I am saying is his role has changed from a defenceman who plays the most minutes in all situations to a defenceman whose role is being shifted towards a more offensive role and less of a shutdown one.

Bourque in 2000-01 played in every situation and played a high number of minutes a night. Bourque over that playoff averaged just 46 seconds less a game than a prime Lidstrom.

Make an argument that a defencemen playing 23:28 minutes a night in the regular season and 21:49 in the playoffs was more valuable than a defenceman playing 26:05in the regular season and 28:31 in the playoffs.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I am not saying Lidstrom wasn’t Detroit’s best defenceman or Lidstrom was ‘bad’. What I am saying is his role has changed from a defenceman who plays the most minutes in all situations to a defenceman whose role is being shifted towards a more offensive role and less of a shutdown one.

Bourque in 2000-01 played in every situation and played a high number of minutes a night. Bourque over that playoff averaged just 46 seconds less a game than a prime Lidstrom.

Make an argument that a defencemen playing 23:28 minutes a night in the regular season and 21:49 in the playoffs was more valuable than a defenceman playing 26:05in the regular season and 28:31 in the playoffs.

Minutes played is really not the all-important stat to measure play, however. Lidstrom had just as good, if not better, individual performance in the playoffs as Bourque those respective years.

Lidstrom scored at a much better pace and was great defensively, just not used as much on the PK. For those that knock him so much for his regular season +/-, he was a +8 in 11 games and not a negative in a single game.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Make an argument that a defencemen playing 23:28 minutes a night in the regular season and 21:49 in the playoffs was more valuable than a defenceman playing 26:05in the regular season and 28:31 in the playoffs.

It really depends on what they did with the minutes, no?

You can turn that argument around and say Lidstrom was more productive, in less minutes and on an inferior team, while still facing the tough competition.

 

[finchster]

It really depends on what they did with the minutes, no?

You can turn that argument around and say Lidstrom was more productive, in less minutes and on an inferior team, while still facing the tough competition.

A coach will play a player the amount of time where they are most productive to do the most to help a team win. Coaches lean on the best players to get the most out of them and Babcock's use of Lidstrom illustrates Lidstrom was much more useful offensively than defensively this playoff. Almost no SHTOI, Stuart on the ice for more defensive face-offs and Lidstrom was being played in fewer (not zero, just less) defensive situations in the playoffs. Detroit being an inferior team is a reason why Lidstrom should have played more minutes, but Lidstrom would have been less effective.

Playing in more minutes in all situations would have certainly caused Lidstrom to be less effective at this stage in his career and that is why it is no contest for me. Bourque could be counted on to play in all situations and huge minutes and thats more effective as a defencemen in my opinion.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

A coach will play a player the amount of time where they are most productive to do the most to help a team win. Coaches lean on the best players to get the most out of them and Babcock's use of Lidstrom illustrates Lidstrom was much more useful offensively than defensively this playoff. Almost no SHTOI, Stuart on the ice for more defensive face-offs and Lidstrom was being played in fewer (not zero, just less) defensive situations in the playoffs. Detroit being an inferior team is a reason why Lidstrom should have played more minutes, but Lidstrom would have been less effective.

Playing in more minutes in all situations would have certainly caused Lidstrom to be less effective at this stage in his career and that is why it is no contest for me. Bourque could be counted on to play in all situations and huge minutes and thats more effective as a defencemen in my opinion.

Does not change the fact Lidstrom scored at a much greater rate, with a weaker team and with less minutes.

It's obvious Babcock tried to conserve Lidstrom in these playoffs, as he went from 19 min/gm against Phoenix and 23 min\gm against San Jose, but I think on a per game basis Lidstrom was every bit as good as Bourque, at least in value.

Close seasons to compare, and I read the opinions before I weighed my vote, but Lidstrom deserved his Norris this year while Bourque was not a top 2 player in his final year, if even on his own team.

The playoffs really do not change anything, given their individual performance separate from team accomplishments.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

What was Bourque's scoring that year in terms of PP and ES? Lidstrom was really mostly a powerplay threat this year.

**Edit** Nevermind I see it's in the OP. I guess Bourque's scoring was a bit more balanced. Not a huge difference, but maybe a hint of Bourque's all-round play being still more of a factor than Lidstrom's who didn't PK, didn't do much on ES?

 

[BraveCanadian]

What was Bourque's scoring that year in terms of PP and ES? Lidstrom was really mostly a powerplay threat this year.

**Edit** Nevermind I see it's in the OP. I guess Bourque's scoring was a bit more balanced. Not a huge difference, but maybe a hint of Bourque's all-round play being still more of a factor than Lidstrom's who didn't PK, didn't do much on ES?

Bourque had 2 more even strength points than Lidstrom while playing enough extra ice time to amount to an extra 4 games played during the season. And he played the whole season on a stacked squad compared to Lidstrom.

It is very debatable that he was more of a factor at ES other than just soaking up more minutes.

 

[SeduceAndDestroy]

It's very close between them. But I discovered something pretty cool about Lidstrom that he has 4 seasons with 60+ points after he turned 35. And he's the only defenseman with a 60+ point season at the age of 40.

35+

Age 40+

Nice Find!

 

[tony d]

Close but Bourque's.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Easily Bourque. When compared to his standards Lidstrom was atrocious defensively, and his Norris is a fraud.

 

[Epsilon]

Easily Bourque. When compared to his standards Lidstrom was atrocious defensively, and his Norris is a fraud.

Chara fanboy be mad.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Easily Bourque. When compared to his standards Lidstrom was atrocious defensively, and his Norris is a fraud.

This site is for serious conversation, kid.

 

[reffree]

Just for fun

This years Wings score 261 goals.
2000-2001 Avs score 270 goals.

Avs were better than the Wings cause they let fewer in, not because they score more.