Lidström vs Bourque

[FrankSidebottom]

2 of the greatest defensemen ever with numerous awards and achievements. Who was better?

Norris

Bourque: 1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-4-4-4-4-7-7-7
Lidström: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-3-4-5-6-6-8

Hart (Top 10)

Bourque: 2-2-4-5-5-6-8
Lidström: 4-6-7-8-9-10

4 cups + CS for Lidström, 1 cup for Bourque

Click to read more...

 

[Kaiden Ghoul]

Career Lids
Player Ray

 

[SillyRabbit]

This poll is better suited for the History of Hockey forum.

In fact they already have multiple megathreads on it:

Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

Please give a reason why your player is better and keep in mind that that it takes a great team with great players to win trophies including individual ones like the Norris.

forums.hfboards.com

That thread used to be a poll before the HF migration caused all of the old polls to be removed.

Bourque won. For better player and for higher ranking all time.

 

[GhostfaceWu]

Prefer Lidstrom but you can't go wrong having either opinion.

 

[bobholly39]

Bourque for both.

Not by a huge margin or anything, but still clear

 

[Mighty Makar]

Bourque

 

[RRhoads]

Lidstrom. Hardly had a bad shift,

 

[Hockeyholic]

Lidstrom was great. Especially in his 30's. Bourque was great from start to end. 19 years with a top 5 norris trophy finish. That is absurd.

And he was still great when Colorado won the cup. By no means a passenger.

Lidstrom, you probablyhave to say had the better career. In terms of cups (4/6) and overall team dominance.

But if you put Bourque on Detroit between 93-2002, they still probably go 3/4 in the SCF. Maybe they win in 96 or 99.

Bourque for both.

Not by a huge margin or anything, but still clear

Yeah this

It's clearly Bourque. Not by a huge margin though.

 

[JackSlater]

Bourque for both. Still two of the very best defencemen ever.

 

[norrisnick]

Lidstrom for both.

 

[Albatros]

Can't see any serious argument for Bourque having had the better career. The Bruins didn't have a great record with him as the captain and besides a number of cups also individually Lidström was decorated more. Even internationally Lidström achieved way more.

 

[Hippasus]

Can't see any serious argument for Bourque having had the better career. The Bruins didn't have a great record with him as the captain and besides a number of cups also individually Lidström was decorated more. Even internationally Lidström achieved way more.

Bourque had a higher and longer offensive prime. His Norris voting record reflects that. More awards and Cups do not necessarily equate to a better career.

 

[Grifter3511]

Bourque had a higher and longer offensive prime. His Norris voting record reflects that. More awards and Cups do not necessarily equate to a better career.

I think they almost certainly do. Unless we're getting into semantics about how we define the word 'career.'

Cups alone don't necessitate a better career, as has been stated billions of times on this site. But if you're winning Cups AND individual trophies, then it implies you are achieving both team success and individual success as the best in the league at your position.

While I feel Bourque is a better overall player, he achieved less individual and team success, which to me equates to a worse career.

 

[Hippasus]

I think they almost certainly do. Unless we're getting into semantics about how we define the word 'career.'

Cups alone don't necessitate a better career, as has been stated billions of times on this site. But if you're winning Cups AND individual trophies, then it implies you are achieving both team success and individual success as the best in the league at your position.

While I feel Bourque is a better overall player, he achieved less individual and team success, which to me equates to a worse career.

We can choose our own criteria for judging the better player. Call it semantics if you want, but I think it's legitimate. For me, greater career equates to greater player for the whole duration. Norris voting is, I believe, an important consideration when trying to determine the better defenseman.

 

[SimpleJack]

An epic debate for sure. 2 elite legends of the highest order. Very close. Gimme Bourque by a hair.

 

[Albatros]

Bourque had a higher and longer offensive prime. His Norris voting record reflects that. More awards and Cups do not necessarily equate to a better career.

High scoring in the highest-scoring (and generally weaker) era in league history, a number of contemporaries were up there with him. The Bruins were better before and after Bourque than with him.

 

[Video Nasty]

High scoring in the highest-scoring (and generally weaker) era in league history, a number of contemporaries were up there with him. The Bruins were better before and after Bourque than with him.

Consider using some of the arguments you normally do when it comes to whoever you feel like arguing for like:

Bourque being a two time Hart runner up and five time top five vote getter, as well as being a fifteen time Norris finalist and nineteen time top five vote getter to go with his five overall wins.

Nothing to do with points and the better before and after comment is so foolish.

 

[Hippasus]

High scoring in the highest-scoring (and generally weaker) era in league history, a number of contemporaries were up there with him. The Bruins were better before and after Bourque than with him.

Bourque was an offensive and defensive stalwart when he was with the Bruins. They used to be weaker as a team than they have been post-04-05. Lidström did not carry the mail offensively anywhere close to the extent that Bouque did. Both Lidström and Bourque were remarkably consistent throughout their careers, though, as complete defensemen.

 

[Albatros]

Consider using some of the arguments you normally do when it comes to whoever you feel like arguing for like:

Bourque being a two time Hart runner up and five time top five vote getter, as well as being a fifteen time Norris finalist and nineteen time top five vote getter to go with his five overall wins.

Nothing to do with points and the better before and after comment is so foolish.

You play to win, and the Bruins were often top favorites.

 

[centipede2233]

This is bourque. Bourque was winning Norris’s against coffey, leetch, chelios and macinnis. Lidstrom only comp was really Pronger and nieds.

 

[Connor McConnor]

I love Lidstrom so much, one of my favourite personal players. But this is Bourque.

 

[Video Nasty]

You play to win, and the Bruins were often top favorites.

*Checks notes*

I’m not seeing where often comes into the equation.

In Bourque’s first 11 seasons, the Islanders won 4 in a row, the Oilers won 5 of 7, with Montreal and Calgary taking the remaining two. They lost to Montreal as the lower seed who went on to the Cup win. The year Calgary won, they lost in the second round to a far superior Montreal squad. They certainly were on the wrong side of a couple of upsets in that time span, but the end result is that there was no Cup they were taking in that 11 year time span.

Then we see the Penguins win back to back Cups. They lost to the Penguins in the Conference Finals both times, the first time as the higher seed and the second time as the lower. Were they seen as favorites even in the first year?

1992-1993 is the year of the upset. Fair enough. Getting swept in the first round as a #2 seed is a humiliating failure.

Then for the rest of his time in Boston, I see a lot of getting eliminated where expected and often by the team that goes on to represent the Conference and in some cases, winning the Cup.

I don’t see where they were top favorites “often” and I don’t see any real chances of winning when just 3 teams won 11 Cups in his first 13 seasons.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I think I go with Lidström because he was better defensively.

 

[Albatros]

*Checks notes*

I’m not seeing where often comes into the equation.

In Bourque’s first 11 seasons, the Islanders won 4 in a row, the Oilers won 5 of 7, with Montreal and Calgary taking the remaining two. They lost to Montreal as the lower seed who went on to the Cup win. The year Calgary won, they lost in the second round to a far superior Montreal squad. They certainly were on the wrong side of a couple of upsets in that time span, but the end result is that there was no Cup they were taking in that 11 year time span.

Then we see the Penguins win back to back Cups. They lost to the Penguins in the Conference Finals both times, the first time as the higher seed and the second time as the lower. Were they seen as favorites even in the first year?

1992-1993 is the year of the upset. Fair enough. Getting swept in the first round as a #2 seed is a humiliating failure.

Then for the rest of his time in Boston, I see a lot of getting eliminated where expected and often by the team that goes on to represent the Conference and in some cases, winning the Cup.

I don’t see where they were top favorites “often” and I don’t see any real chances of winning when just 3 teams won 11 Cups in his first 13 seasons.

Boston Bruins Futures Odds | SportsOddsHistory.com

www.sportsoddshistory.com

 

[Fatass]

Lidstrom was a key piece in his team winning the Cup. Bourque had go to a great team, when older, and chase a Cup in a supporting role. Imo Lidström was the better player. I’d rather start a club with him.