Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Johnny Engine]

Karlsson were top-5 in a giveaways. He won almost solely on offensive stats and the fact that he did have a minor improvement defensively. To his credit tho, I bet he blocked more shots than Coffey ever did during a season and he did have plenty of takeaways too.

I also think that you only remember Lidström post-lockout where he took as little risk as possible to be able to cover up for players like Rafalski and White. When he played with Murphy he was a THE master of risk management (including leading NHL defensemen in SH points). It was the same thing with Bourque at the later stages of his career. He got a majority of his points on the PP.

I think you underrate Lidströms offense and Im not saying you are doing it intentionally. The fact as you downplay him as a shutdown d-man who can run a PP points at it being intentional tho.

Karlsson was 7th, not top 5 in giveaways. Doughty and Chara were top 20. By now, it should be obvious that the only thing that the giveaway stat really measures well is how much a player handles the puck.

 

[seventieslord]

Karlsson was 7th, not top 5 in giveaways. Doughty and Chara were top 20. By now, it should be obvious that the only thing that the giveaway stat really measures well is how much a player handles the puck.

indeed.

 

[Hobnobs]

Karlsson was 7th, not top 5 in giveaways. Doughty and Chara were top 20. By now, it should be obvious that the only thing that the giveaway stat really measures well is how much a player handles the puck.

Context please. Doughty and Chara had 20 less GvAs. I dont base this entirely on giveaways tho. Kubas sacrifized his body alot for Karlsson. Blocking shots and going hard in the corners. Karlsson was pretty meh on defense and his far cry away to be compared to Lidström or Bourque. I dont even see why hes brought up in the discussion at all.

Edit: Top-5 defenemen (4th)

 

[Rhiessan71]

I think you underrate Lidströms offense and Im not saying you are doing it intentionally. The fact as you downplay him as a shutdown d-man who can run a PP points at it being intentional tho.

Damned right it's intentional because it's absolutely true.

 

[seventieslord]

Maybe that's not a great way to characterize it, but yeah, Lidstrom was not an elite even strength producer.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Maybe that's not a great way to characterize it, but yeah, Lidstrom was not an elite even strength producer.

Maybe in raw points no, but his transition game is what allowed those forwards to score and why his +/- was often league best.

In many regards, he has the same skillset as Bourque. Puck retrieval and making the best first pass is something they both were league best at. But the difference of course was who they were passing to.

 

[matnor]

Maybe that's not a great way to characterize it, but yeah, Lidstrom was not an elite even strength producer.

These are Lidström's finishes among defensemen in even strength points:

1 1 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 8 9 9 13 14 14 15 58 62

He has 6 top-3 finishes and 12 top-10 finishes. I think that can be seen as elite. His finishes in powerplay points are:

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 14 14 18 29 34

It's slightly better but not a huge difference.

 

[Le Magnifique 66]

Ray Bourque, played in every situation and also carried the puck a lot better

 

[Dark Shadows]

Ray Bourque, played in every situation and also carried the puck a lot better

Lidstrom also played in every situation and did not need to carry the puck like Bourque did due to the team around him, although he could rush up ice like Bourque. Their skating skills were virtually identical, although Bourque just had more offensive shiftiness and instincts on when he could gamble due to being called on to do it all the time.

The bigger difference was that Lidstrom would have been required to attack the puck carrier a lot more in the 80's than he did.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Maybe in raw points no, but his transition game is what allowed those forwards to score and why his +/- was often league best.

In many regards, he has the same skillset as Bourque. Puck retrieval and making the best first pass is something they both were league best at. But the difference of course was who they were passing to.

He never led the league in plus-minus and led the team twice (?) in 2003 and 2007. He was one of the TOI leaders on one of the best teams in the league, I would expect him to have a very good plus-minus. Being on such a good team, he could usually afford to make the high % plays. I don't see how his ES data compared to his team, separates him from the other top d-men.

Is there no objective data to support Lidstrom's case? When players like Bourque, MacInnis and Pronger (peak/prime) have better adjusted +/-, it's because they played on weaker teams. When Potvin and Robinson have better numbers, it's because they played on better teams. I'm not sure what the explanation of Stevens being near the top of the Devils in +/- each season or Chelios coming in at an advanced age and beating Lidstrom many years ('02, '04, about even in '06), since they were prototypical shutdown d-men. If Lidstrom was nearly perfect defensively and had better offensive skills, shouldn't he leave them in the dust?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Next, compare Lidstrom's playoff plus minus with Ray Bourque's...

 

[jkrx]

Damned right it's intentional because it's absolutely true.

No, it's not.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Next, compare Lidstrom's playoff plus minus with Ray Bourque's...

One thing to note is how in Bourque's last two seasons, he was +13 in 34 playoff games with Colorado, despite being well past his prime.

If you restrict it to years in which each player's team at least made the conf. finals:

Bourque +36 in 93 PO games
Lidstrom +55 in 163 PO games

is this thread closed yet?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Lidstrom in the 96 playoffs had to play a more offensively involved role and did just fine in it.

Until he played against Colorado and displayed inferior risk assessment skills against an aggressive-offensive club, posting a team worst -6 and getting burnt at center ice by Alexei Gusarov and the third-line in overtime.

He couldn't generate enough cumulative offense to off-set the damage created by him playing a more "offensively involved role" against a team like that. Ray Bourque could. Lidstrom has offensive tools, no doubt - that's why he found so much success on the powerplay - but he didn't always use them at the right times when he had one eye on the attack zone. Bourque - whether it was an adjustment to a sink-or-swim situation or just an inherent ability - did much more often than not. That's why Bourque played that balanced style most of the time, while Lidstrom mostly held himself back, delivering beautiful up-ice passes, but saving his best offensive tricks for the powerplay (a lower risk situation).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I find it hard to believe that Lidstrom was asked to play more offensively in 1996, when his partner was Paul Coffey.

I also find it hard to give him too much blame for the unit breaking down. Bowman had the team playing a derivative of the left wing lock at that point and locking systems break down when a defenseman like Coffey leaves his lane. I'm not saying Lidstrom neccessarily played well against Colorado, but he sure wasn't put in a position to succeed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One thing to note is how in Bourque's last two seasons, he was +13 in 34 playoff games with Colorado, despite being well past his prime.

If you restrict it to years in which each player's team at least made the conf. finals:

Bourque +36 in 93 PO games
Lidstrom +55 in 163 PO games

is this thread closed yet?

Yes, Bourque played great and was a key player when the team went far.

He also racked up huge minuses when the team lost early, something Lidstrom really didn't do.

I lean towards Bourque in these comparisons too, but I do think Lidstrom was even less prone to getting burned than Bourque was.

 

[tarheelhockey]

is this thread closed yet?

At least it has returned to a sense of civility and is tolerable to read.

1 post closer

 

[Dark Shadows]

I find it hard to believe that Lidstrom was asked to play more offensively in 1996, when his partner was Paul Coffey.

I also find it hard to give him too much blame for the unit breaking down. Bowman had the team playing a derivative of the left wing lock at that point and locking systems break down when a defenseman like Coffey leaves his lane. I'm not saying Lidstrom neccessarily played well against Colorado, but he sure wasn't put in a position to succeed.

Well, Lids did get caught up ice way out of position a few times while battling the puck at center in that series. But overall I agree with you and blame Coffey. So did almost everyone else watching.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yes, Bourque played great and was a key player when the team went far.

He also racked up huge minuses when the team lost early, something Lidstrom really didn't do.

I lean towards Bourque in these comparisons too, but I do think Lidstrom was even less prone to getting burned than Bourque was.

Unfortunately, the other 5 people on the ice with you often drive this number up or down.

 

[jkrx]

Well, Lids did get caught up ice way out of position a few times while battling the puck at center in that series. But overall I agree with you and blame Coffey. So did almost everyone else watching.

Except Rhiessan and quoipourquoi. The only two I've seen who blames Lidström.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Except Rhiessan and quoipourquoi. The only two I've seen who blames Lidström.

Well, don't get me wrong. I know Bourque was much better at creating offense and equal to Lidstrom at supporting offense. But Coffey was to blame for most of the problems that series. Lidstrom also was not quite the defensive superstar he would become in a few years yet.

 

[jkrx]

Well, don't get me wrong. I know Bourque was much better at creating offense and equal to Lidstrom at supporting offense. But Coffey was to blame for most of the problems that series. Lidstrom also was not quite the defensive superstar he would become in a few years yet.

It's one thing to think that Bourque is better while recognizing Lidström as near equal, it's another to downplay him to make the gap between them bigger. You are doing the former the others the latter.

 

[tony d]

Both guys where good and you can't go wrong with either but the answer here is Bourque.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1000! And this thread is full...