RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens

[jkrx]

It's not, as you are trying to debunk one Bourque related data set based on a parity argument. A parity argument that also applies to the 90's and up to the '04 LO.
I wouldn't be so ignorant to say Bourque's teams were "have nots" but I also wouldn't come close to saying they were a "have" either.
Meanwhile, in the pre-cap era from the early 90's till the '04 LO there was a huge disparity in the League between the small market "have nots" and the large market "have's" and Lidstrom was on one of, if not, the biggest "have" teams during that period.

But the disparity wasn't as big as in the 70s and 80s. In fact, it's not close at all. There were a few bottom feeders but in the 70s half of the teams were punching bags and in the 80s nearly half the league.

 

[Fugu]

It's not, as you are trying to debunk one Bourque related data set based on a parity argument. A parity argument that also applies to the 90's and up to the '04 LO.
I wouldn't be so ignorant to say Bourque's teams were "have nots" but I also wouldn't come close to saying they were a "have" either.
Meanwhile, in the pre-cap era from the early 90's till the '04 LO there was a huge disparity in the League between the small market "have nots" and the large market "have's" and Lidstrom was on one of, if not, the biggest "have" teams during that period.

Don't tell me I'm completely out of context as Devil also saw the thing and called it out.

This is a myth promulgated by the NHL to justify their lockout. Fans bought into the idea that it was about parity, but alas, it was about cost certainty, with the alleged side benefit being greater parity. Meanwhile, 3 Original Six teams have won Cups, one almost twice, and another has now won twice (LA). The best protection the Have Nots had was an UFA age of 31. If Detroit wanted to throw $8 MM at a 36 yr old, let them. Forwards peak in their early 20s, and defenders slightly later. The bang for the buck is in those earlier years. (This is Business of Hockey fodder though.)

My point initially here was to remind the poster that Hockey Outsider had done some of the evening up work.

I will come back to the parity issue once I unearth the material. Sent Devil some links so he can get started too.

And again, I never said Lidstrom was a poor possession player in the Detroit system. What I said was that on his own, Lidstrom was no where near Bourque's level in puck possession and OVERALL game control.
I even went on to detail the GA/60 between the 2 players to show that superiority to which you didn't try to debunk.
I'm all ears though if you have another explanation other than Bourque's ability to keep the puck off of opposing players sticks.

I will disagree with you on the part in bold until the cows come home. That was the essence of Lidstrom. I'll try to return to your data offering, plus note right away that that may also need era adjustment.

 

[Elvis P]

... I'll try to return to your data offering, plus note right away that that may also need era adjustment.

Hey now, these are the HF boards where the posters tell me the greatest sports and entertainment of all time happened in the last 25 years and posters use unadjusted stats to prove that the athletes of the last 25 years are the greatest of all time. Please be true to the spirit of the HF boards. (shaking my head at myself, not you)

 

[overg]

Hey now, these are the HF boards where the posters tell me the greatest sports and entertainment of all time happened in the last 25 years and posters use unadjusted stats to prove that the athletes of the last 25 years are the greatest of all time. Please be true to the spirit of the HF boards. (shaking my head at myself, not you)

Hahaha. I had to re-write one of my earlier posts about 5 times, because it kept coming out sounding just like the posts to which you're referring. I was trying to get across that the two spent significant amounts of their careers playing in vastly different eras of hockey, without it sounding like those "newer! faster! better!" posts we always see.

I *think* almost everyone in this thread would agree that both Bourque and Lidstrom played a style well-suited for their times and teams. To the extent there is a debate, it might be as to whether one style was inherently better than the other.

Why is this so hard to understand?
Even the most avid Bourque supporter has no issue agreeing that on a purely defensive and positional level, that Lidstrom was better. You watch both players play and you can see that Lidstrom was just a little bit more refined defensively, was just a step better positionally, had just a little better grasp of his angles.
Now, do we sit here and start crying foul when something like this is said? Do we try and go all extreme every time saying "Oh so Bourque sucks at defense eh?"?
NO, we don't!
We see that while Bourque was an outstanding defensive player, we can also see that Lidstrom was a little better.
We say that Bourque was better than Lidstrom at this aspect or that aspect and it's an extreme response almost every time proven easily by you doing exactly that right now in your response above.

I can only speak for myself, but my objections to your statements came when you stated that Lidstrom had some sort of luxury in sitting back and concentrating on defense, as if to state his job was somehow easier than Bourque's. A lot of these issues are matters of perspective, and I think you're only looking at one side of the coin.

1. Does the fact that Bourque played in the 80's and early 90's falsely inflate his offensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his defensive prowess?

2. Does the fact that Lidstrom played in the late 90's and 00's falsely inflate his defensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his offensive prowess?

3. Does the fact that Bourque played on lesser teams which never won a Cup falsely deflate his positive impact on those teams? On the flip side, does the fact that he was the best player on lesser teams falsely inflate his positive impact on those teams?

4. Does the fact that Lidstrom played on four Cup teams falsely inflate his impact on those teams? Or does the fact that he played with numerous all stars and HOF'ers falsely deflate his impact on those teams?

For every one of those questions, I'd argue the answer is "yes, at least a little bit." The point being, if you're going to state that Lidstrom had the "luxury" of not being "the guy", you also have to admit that Bourque had the "luxury" of not having to compete with multiple HOF'ers on his team. If you're going to argue that Lidstrom "sat back" and concentrated on defense, then you also need to concede that Bourque "didn't have to worry about" playing a positionally demanding 5-man system.

There was a huge shift in how the game was played which took place during the mid 1990's. I simply think you're over-crediting Bourque for playing more before that shift. That doesn't mean Lidstrom is better for having played after, but I think it does mean you have to take into consideration how the role of star defensemen changed during that time, and recognize that Lidstrom played a game very-well suited to the "new era."

And of course, everyone always has to keep in mind that we're comparing 2 of the very top players of all time here. Hell, even bring Coffey and Stevens back into the mix, you're still talking about players who were better than at least 95% (very rough math, please feel free to adjust either way as you see fit, I'm just trying to make a broad point) of defensemen who have ever played in the NHL.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I *think* almost everyone in this thread would agree that both Bourque and Lidstrom played a style well-suited for their times and teams. To the extent there is a debate, it might be as to whether one style was inherently better than the other.


I can only speak for myself, but my objections to your statements came when you stated that Lidstrom had some sort of luxury in sitting back and concentrating on defense, as if to state his job was somehow easier than Bourque's. A lot of these issues are matters of perspective, and I think you're only looking at one side of the coin.

1. Does the fact that Bourque played in the 80's and early 90's falsely inflate his offensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his defensive prowess?

2. Does the fact that Lidstrom played in the late 90's and 00's falsely inflate his defensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his offensive prowess?

3. Does the fact that Bourque played on lesser teams which never won a Cup falsely deflate his positive impact on those teams? On the flip side, does the fact that he was the best player on lesser teams falsely inflate his positive impact on those teams?

4. Does the fact that Lidstrom played on four Cup teams falsely inflate his impact on those teams? Or does the fact that he played with numerous all stars and HOF'ers falsely deflate his impact on those teams?

For every one of those questions, I'd argue the answer is "yes, at least a little bit." The point being, if you're going to state that Lidstrom had the "luxury" of not being "the guy", you also have to admit that Bourque had the "luxury" of not having to compete with multiple HOF'ers on his team. If you're going to argue that Lidstrom "sat back" and concentrated on defense, then you also need to concede that Bourque "didn't have to worry about" playing a positionally demanding 5-man system.

There was a huge shift in how the game was played which took place during the mid 1990's. I simply think you're over-crediting Bourque for playing more before that shift. That doesn't mean Lidstrom is better for having played after, but I think it does mean you have to take into consideration how the role of star defensemen changed during that time, and recognize that Lidstrom played a game very-well suited to the "new era."

And of course, everyone always has to keep in mind that we're comparing 2 of the very top players of all time here. Hell, even bring Coffey and Stevens back into the mix, you're still talking about players who were better than at least 95% (very rough math, please feel free to adjust either way as you see fit, I'm just trying to make a broad point) of defensemen who have ever played in the NHL.

Great post.

 

[habsfanatics*]

Hahaha. I had to re-write one of my earlier posts about 5 times, because it keep coming out sounding just like the posts to which you're referring. I was trying to get across that the two spent significant amounts of their careers playing in vastly different eras of hockey, without it sounding like those "newer! faster! better!" posts we always see.

I *think* almost everyone in this thread would agree that both Bourque and Lidstrom played a style well-suited for their times and teams. To the extent there is a debate, it might be as to whether one style was inherently better than the other.


I can only speak for myself, but my objections to your statements came when you stated that Lidstrom had some sort of luxury in sitting back and concentrating on defense, as if to state his job was somehow easier than Bourque's. A lot of these issues are matters of perspective, and I think you're only looking at one side of the coin.

1. Does the fact that Bourque played in the 80's and early 90's falsely inflate his offensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his defensive prowess?

2. Does the fact that Lidstrom played in the late 90's and 00's falsely inflate his defensive prowess? On the flip side, does that fact falsely deflate his offensive prowess?

3. Does the fact that Bourque played on lesser teams which never won a Cup falsely deflate his positive impact on those teams? On the flip side, does the fact that he was the best player on lesser teams falsely inflate his positive impact on those teams?

4. Does the fact that Lidstrom played on four Cup teams falsely inflate his impact on those teams? Or does the fact that he played with numerous all stars and HOF'ers falsely deflate his impact on those teams?

For every one of those questions, I'd argue the answer is "yes, at least a little bit." The point being, if you're going to state that Lidstrom had the "luxury" of not being "the guy", you also have to admit that Bourque had the "luxury" of not having to compete with multiple HOF'ers on his team. If you're going to argue that Lidstrom "sat back" and concentrated on defense, then you also need to concede that Bourque "didn't have to worry about" playing a positionally demanding 5-man system.

There was a huge shift in how the game was played which took place during the mid 1990's. I simply think you're over-crediting Bourque for playing more before that shift. That doesn't mean Lidstrom is better for having played after, but I think it does mean you have to take into consideration how the role of star defensemen changed during that time, and recognize that Lidstrom played a game very-well suited to the "new era."

And of course, everyone always has to keep in mind that we're comparing 2 of the very top players of all time here. Hell, even bring Coffey and Stevens back into the mix, you're still talking about players who were better than at least 95% (very rough math, please feel free to adjust either way as you see fit, I'm just trying to make a broad point) of defensemen who have ever played in the NHL.

One of the best posts I've read on these boards. Great job. I do find there is a tendency to adjust the offensive numbers for players playing in a higher scoring era, but the same adjustment is often ignored for the defensive gems of the lower scoring eras, ie Lidstrom. What does it mean? I don't know, having watched both play, I feel in my gut Bourque was the superior player and that won't change.

 

[Killion]

...I feel in my gut Bourque was the superior player and that won't change.

... and your entitled to your opinion, though not one I share.

 

[habsfanatics*]

... and your entitled to your opinion, though not one I share.

Hey, that's fine, that's what these discussions are all about. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, both are two of the best to ever play the game. I feel like Bourque controlled the play more and was a better player, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss anyone who puts Lidstrom ahead.

 

[unknown33]

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here, both are two of the best to ever play the game.

It seems to me like the problems it that there are a lot of posters that don't feel this way.

 

[Killion]

It seems to me like the problems it that there are a lot of posters that don't feel this way.

... problem? What else is new unknown?

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is a myth promulgated by the NHL to justify their lockout. Fans bought into the idea that it was about parity, but alas, it was about cost certainty, with the alleged side benefit being greater parity. Meanwhile, 3 Original Six teams have won Cups, one almost twice, and another has now won twice (LA). The best protection the Have Nots had was an UFA age of 31. If Detroit wanted to throw $8 MM at a 36 yr old, let them. Forwards peak in their early 20s, and defenders slightly later. The bang for the buck is in those earlier years. (This is Business of Hockey fodder though.)

My point initially here was to remind the poster that Hockey Outsider had done some of the evening up work.

I will come back to the parity issue once I unearth the material. Sent Devil some links so he can get started too.

There were 9 expansion teams added in 10 years during the 90's and a Canadian dollar in the 65-70 cent range.
That's not propaganda.

I will disagree with you on the part in bold until the cows come home. That was the essence of Lidstrom. I'll try to return to your data offering, plus note right away that that may also need era adjustment.

Look, Jeff Norton on his own was a decent puck possession player/puck handler but once united with the 5-man unit in SJ, he was a much better puck possession system player.

Lidstrom played a very conservative game at even strength. He did NOT push the offense, he did NOT push the play and he did NOT drive the engine at even strength.
He defended, made good outlet passes, controlled the puck as part of the Detroit system and made the safest play almost 100% of the time.
He did NOT control the puck onto himself.

Being able to play well in a puck possession system is not the same as being a good puck possession player onto yourself.
Playing like and controlling the puck like Bourque or Leetch or Jagr did in their primes or like Subban and especially Karlsson do now involves risk and risk was not something Lidstrom took at ES, like ever.

So you can keep pretending that Lidstrom was on Bourque's level individually in this regard all you want but I'm sorry, you are quite mistaken.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lidstrom played a very conservative game at even strength. He did NOT push the offense, he did NOT push the play and he did NOT drive the engine at even strength.
He defended, made good outlet passes, controlled the puck as part of the Detroit system and made the safest play almost 100% of the time.
He did NOT control the puck onto himself.

Being able to play well in a puck possession system is not the same as being a good puck possession player onto yourself.
Playing like and controlling the puck like Bourque or Leetch or Jagr did in their primes or like Subban and especially Karlsson do now involves risk and risk was not something Lidstrom took at ES, like ever.

So you can keep pretending that Lidstrom was on Bourque's level individually in this regard all you want but I'm sorry, you are quite mistaken.

Your position seems to be that a defenseman has to take a lot of risks to create offense in order to be elite at the puck possession game? I'm not sure I follow. Whenever I saw the Red Wings, I saw Lidstrom controlling the pace of the game - just in a more laid-back conservative way that a flashier guy who took risks. Doesn't make him better or worse at that aspect of the game, just a slightly different way.

Bourque aside, I thought Lidstrom CLEARLY controlled the flow of the game more than Brian Leetch. Leetch might have controlled the offensive zone a bit better, but Lidstrom controlled his own end of the ice much better. Karlsson is basically like Brian Leetch II. Honestly don't think Subban is all that close in that regards.

It seems to me that you have a preference for the way star defensemen usually played in the 1980s and early 1990s, and that's fine, but IMO you are overly punishing Lidstrom for not playing that way.

 

[jkrx]

There were 9 expansion teams added in 10 years during the 90's and a Canadian dollar in the 65-70 cent range.
That's not propaganda.






Look, Jeff Norton on his own was a decent puck possession player/puck handler but once united with the 5-man unit in SJ, he was a much better puck possession system player.

Lidstrom played a very conservative game at even strength. He did NOT push the offense, he did NOT push the play and he did NOT drive the engine at even strength.
He defended, made good outlet passes, controlled the puck as part of the Detroit system and made the safest play almost 100% of the time.
He did NOT control the puck onto himself.

Being able to play well in a puck possession system is not the same as being a good puck possession player onto yourself.
Playing like and controlling the puck like Bourque or Leetch or Jagr did in their primes or like Subban and especially Karlsson do now involves risk and risk was not something Lidstrom took at ES, like ever.

So you can keep pretending that Lidstrom was on Bourque's level individually in this regard all you want but I'm sorry, you are quite mistaken.

Lidstrom could carry the puck plenty and did it quite often but he usually passed it to open up the play once gaining the neutral zone to break up the "trap"-system a lot of teams were using in the DPE and still do. He also did it for the international team. I agree with that Lidstrom was superior when it came to risk management and didn't risk a goal against as much as Bourque, Leetch, Karlsson and Subban did or do.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Your position seems to be that a defenseman has to take a lot of risks to create offense in order to be elite at the puck possession game? I'm not sure I follow. Whenever I saw the Red Wings, I saw Lidstrom controlling the pace of the game - just in a more laid-back conservative way that a flashier guy who took risks. Doesn't make him better or worse at that aspect of the game, just a slightly different way.

Bourque aside, I thought Lidstrom CLEARLY controlled the flow of the game more than Brian Leetch. Leetch might have controlled the offensive zone a bit better, but Lidstrom controlled his own end of the ice much better. Karlsson is basically like Brian Leetch II. Honestly don't think Subban is all that close in that regards.

It seems to me that you have a preference for the way star defensemen usually played in the 1980s and early 1990s, and that's fine, but IMO you are overly punishing Lidstrom for not playing that way.

No, I just know the difference between how one is supposed to play in a puck possession system and how one plays a puck possession style as an individual.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, I just know the difference between how one is supposed to play in a puck possession system and how one plays a puck possession style as an individual.

And you are insinuating that people who disagree with you don't know the difference? Or are you continuing to punish Lidstrom for playing on a team good enough where he didn't often have to "play as an individual?"

 

[Rhiessan71]

Lidstrom could carry the puck plenty and did it quite often but he usually passed it to open up the play once gaining the neutral zone to break up the "trap"-system a lot of teams were using in the DPE and still do. He also did it for the international team. I agree with that Lidstrom was superior when it came to risk management and didn't risk a goal against as much as Bourque, Leetch, Karlsson and Subban did or do.

Completely inaccurate. Detroit broke the Trap by getting the puck up to a stationary winger by the boards near center but not at center, (the trap is designed to pressure the puck at the Redline attempting to force the opposing team to either turn the puck over outright or force them to give up possession and dump the puck in) sucking the Trap to that side and then immediately making a full cross-ice pass to a player or players with speed on the opposite wing.

Bowman details this at length in one of his interviews saying they had to come up with something after having their ***** handed to them by the Devil's in the '95 Finals.

 

[Rhiessan71]

And you are insinuating that people who disagree with you don't know the difference? Or are you continuing to punish Lidstrom for playing on a team good enough where he didn't often have to "play as an individual?"

First off, yes and second, as long as Bourque is continued to be punished for the opposite then yeah, that's also a yes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First off, yes and second, as long as Bourque is continued to be punished for the opposite then yeah, that's also a yes.

1) Awfully sure of yourself for someone who thinks PK freaking Subban is better at controlling the game than Nicklas Lidstrom was. I mean, Subban does have his flashes of brilliance, but...

2) As to your second point, are you purposely making absurd statements to "get back at" people you feel are doing the same against Bourque? PK freaking Subban...

I mean, I voted for Bourque in this poll, but that statement of yours above is frankly insulting to everything Lidstrom accomplished.

 

[overg]

Look, Jeff Norton on his own was a decent puck possession player/puck handler but once united with the 5-man unit in SJ, he was a much better puck possession system player.

Lidstrom played a very conservative game at even strength. He did NOT push the offense, he did NOT push the play and he did NOT drive the engine at even strength.
He defended, made good outlet passes, controlled the puck as part of the Detroit system and made the safest play almost 100% of the time.
He did NOT control the puck onto himself.

I completely understand what you're saying as far as the difference between the two "styles" of puck possession (individual vs. systematic), but I think you're downplaying just how dominant Lidstrom was at his style.

The guy won seven Norris trophies during the clutch and grab and low-scoring era, when pretty much every team was playing some sort of defensive system. He did that by being clearly better at controlling the pace of the game a lot better and more consistently than any of his contemporaries.

That control certainly included offense. as, by my count, the guy was top 5 among defensemen scoring a whopping 8 times between 2001 and 2011, including being 1st 3 of those times (source, a year-by-year review of ESPN.com, which allows you to view the points leader by position for every year starting in 2001. I'm sure there's a better source out there for those who want to verify or go back further than 2001. Also keep in mind an entire season was wiped out during that time period).

Lidstrom "controlled" the puck by getting it to his teammates in a prime position for them to maintain control over it. Whether that teammate was Pavel Datsyuk or Kris Draper, Lidstrom made sure that the puck was going to a player and place which would benefit the Wings. It seems kind of crazy to use that as a negative. It'd be like getting on Gretzky's case for scoring too many assists. Lidstrom wasn't as good as Gretzky at putting the puck directly into a prime scoring chance (no one in the history of the league was even close to Gretzky in that regard), but he was one of the best we've ever seen at making sure that when he had possession of the puck, the Wings were going to retain possession of that puck.

 

[Rhiessan71]

1) Awfully sure of yourself for someone who thinks PK freaking Subban is better at controlling the game than Nicklas Lidstrom was. I mean, Subban does have his flashes of brilliance, but...

2) As to your second point, are you purposely making absurd statements to "get back at" people you feel are doing the same against Bourque? PK freaking Subban...

I mean, I voted for Bourque in this poll, but that statement of yours above is frankly insulting to everything Lidstrom accomplished.

You need to watch Subban more. This past season was a huge step up for his possession game compared to years past where it was more about just getting the puck and "Coffeeing it" up the ice. He ragged the puck more, slowed or sped the game up, circled back to wait for openings and didn't force things nearly as much like he used to.
Still not on Karlsson's level for sure.

 

[unknown33]

What else is new unknown?

The Lidstrom detractors seem more aggressive and in their approach than the once preferring him over Bourque.

 

[Fugu]

No, I just know the difference between how one is supposed to play in a puck possession system and how one plays a puck possession style as an individual.

Lidstrom was on a team that personified the puck possession system-- which generally is a team concept. He wasn't going to go against his coaches' philosophy and do the one man show, was he? I think the other thing is called being a puck hog.

All silliness aside, the entire concept of puck possession is a team concept--- because the puck travels faster than does any one skater. A player who insists on hanging on to the puck for a very long time is in fact, a detriment to his team. It's supposed to be about quickly transitioning and moving up the ice. The Soviets were incredible in this regard because the unit kept the puck, not any one guy. Their philosophy was almost touch and go as they were instructed to not have the puck for more than a couple seconds!

 

[Killion]

The Lidstrom detractors seem more aggressive and in their approach than the once preferring him over Bourque.

... well, for my tastes & preferences, so unique & intelligent was Lidstrom, beyond effective, esoteric, clearly a keen understanding of angles, geometry & leverage while expending minimum energy insuring his tanks full "just in case" well, as great as Bourque was if I had my choice between the two as the Goalie behind them, the Coach or GM Id definitely go with Lidstrom. Bourque was a superb example of the proto-typical Canadian issued Defenceman, but he just wasnt as dynamic, multi-versed. Could breakdown. Took Lidstrom time to gain his sea legs in the NHL but once he did he just got better & better & better. I watched Salming very closely back in the day, and quite a few parallels. Similarities to Lidstrom who was better than Borje' for sure but at their cores, thought the game the same way. And Id rank Salming not only one of the greatest Leaf Defenceman of All Time (and consider that company he's in) but also in the history of the game itself.

 

[Fugu]

There were 9 expansion teams added in 10 years during the 90's and a Canadian dollar in the 65-70 cent range.
That's not propaganda.

Sure it is. If the metrics for parity are the number of teams winning or making it to the finals, it's higher in this period than the previous modern eras. Mid 70s and into the 80s was the peak era for disparity. I'm still gathering up some studies, Poisson predictions for scoring (and the anomalous 1980s), goal differentials and championship outings. There's a lot, so this may get spun off in another thread.

The CAD made it tougher on Canadian teams financially, but they were in great company with the nontraditional US markets, so it kinda evened out. There are other ways to explain the Dead Puck Era, but this too will get into some things you won't want to admit when comparing across eras-- the skewed reward system with ties and how that affected coaching and scoring, clutching and grabbing era and just the overall role officials had in determining outcomes, rule changes... Poisson models fit hockey perfectly, and when we see huge deviations, there's some unintended consequence causing it.

Look, Jeff Norton on his own was a decent puck possession player/puck handler but once united with the 5-man unit in SJ, he was a much better puck possession system player.

Lidstrom played a very conservative game at even strength. He did NOT push the offense, he did NOT push the play and he did NOT drive the engine at even strength.
He defended, made good outlet passes, controlled the puck as part of the Detroit system and made the safest play almost 100% of the time.
He did NOT control the puck onto himself.

Being able to play well in a puck possession system is not the same as being a good puck possession player onto yourself.
Playing like and controlling the puck like Bourque or Leetch or Jagr did in their primes or like Subban and especially Karlsson do now involves risk and risk was not something Lidstrom took at ES, like ever.

So you can keep pretending that Lidstrom was on Bourque's level individually in this regard all you want but I'm sorry, you are quite mistaken.

I see jkrx, TDMM, and overg have responded..... I'm speechless in some ways.

I don't mean this in an condescending nor aggressive way, but you really sound like someone who never really watched Lidstrom. I've never heard such an extreme interpretation of his core skill set and what actually led to him being accepted as one of the greatest ever in just about any circle that would consider such things. I get your preference for Bourque over Lidstrom but when you make it sound this extreme -- the present day comparables? Are you serious?

 

[Killion]

A player who insists on hanging on to the puck for a very long time is in fact, a detriment to his team. It's supposed to be about quickly transitioning and moving up the ice.

... very true, unless your name is Howie Morenz, Eddie Shore, Maurice Richard, Red Kelly, Gordie Howe at times, Bobby Hull, Bobby Orr, Guy Lafleur, Brad Park sporadically, Coffey & Bourque, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Ovechkin & Crosby along with Datsyuk & others when their really "on". Mission from Gawd. Nothing like a sensational Coast~Coaster huh? Generally that the Canadian game. What their known for. Individual effort. But its not limited to Canadians anymore obviously, be it a Bure' or whomever. Tactically lightning like that if you have the luxury of such talents, well, Mustangs gotta run free & wild. But yes, understood puck movement key & critical. Anatoli Tarasov, the Godfather of the Russian Game believed that if you pass the puck 3-4X's more than your opponents did youd come out on top & kept detailed statistics on his players passing & in scouting opponents. It was that dizzying array of passing, obviously with full puck possession that so flabbergasted & blew the minds of Team Canada in 72. Dryden, he melted under the onslaught playing stand-up, positioning himself to face a shot then bing, another pass, he scrambles, then another pass, another after that & the Russians are just shoveling it into an empty net.